Appendix A

-

--------

2

M E ASURES OF R ELIGIOSITY

2.9

RELIGIOUS DOUBTS SCALES (Altemeyer, 1988; Hunsberger et aI., 1993)

Reviewed by Raymond F. Paloutzian

iitors' Note: The assessment of religious doubt is rela ,ely new to the psychology of religion lit ture. Recently, three ways of assessing Jubt have been presented, including a ort religious doubts scale (Altemeyer, } 8), a series of vignettes that assess doubt ted in a variety of circumstances (Huns ~ rger. McKenzie, Pratt, & Pancer, 1993), d a method of tapping doubt held in secret Utemeyer, 1988). Each of these is briefly ribed below.

RELIGIOUS DOUBTS SCALE (Altemeyer, 1988) 'be Religiou s Doubts (RD) Scale is de igned to measure the degree to which peo Ie experience doubts about traditIonal reli ~ous teaching . The scale is composed of en items . Each item is answered on a six JOint scale that asks the subject to indicate :he extent to which he or she has had such oubts. The answer options range from 0 none at all) to 5 (a great deal). The total - are is simply the sum of the answers to the 10 items. The statements are designed to ess both intellectual and experience ed hesitations about religious belief and ommitment. In a sample of over 500 University of . lanitoba psychology students and a simi lar- ized sample of their parents, the aver age interitem correlations were .32 and .36, re pectively. The internal consistency relia- ' bility coefficients were .84 for the students and .86 for their parents. The mean of the

single-item scores for the students was l.89 (scale mean = 18.9); the mean for their parents was 1.45 (scale mean = 14.5). As would be expected on theoretical grounds, RD scores correlated negatively with belief in Christian orthodoxy, intrinsic religious orientation, church attendance, frequency of prayer, loyalty to beliefs ac quired during childhood, belief in a final judgment, control of impulses, obedience to authority, and a belief in Satan. RD scores correlated positively with extrinsic reli gious orientation and the importance of being good over holding beliefs. These trends occurred in both the parents' and stu dents' samples. The interitem correlations, internal con sistency reliability coefficients, and pattern of relationships attained with other mea sures suggest that the Religious Doubts Scale has good statistical properties and shows promise for use in subsequent re search. It has recently been replaced by a 20-item version (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 199'1) that asks respondents to indicate both (a) the extent to which they have ever had questions about religion because of the is sues raised and (b) the extent to which they presently do ubt religion because of these matters .

Location: Altemeyer, B., (1988) . Enemies offreedom: Un derstanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Fran cisco: Jossey-Bass. Altemeyer, B., & H unsberger, B, (J 997). Changed lives. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press.

Appendix A

The Religious Doubts Scale

Below are listed reasons that people sometimes give for doubting traditional religious teach

ings. Please indicate the extent to which you have had these doubts.

Scales of Religious Attitudes

103

0 = None at all 1 = Only a little bit 2 = A mild amount 3 = A moderate amount 4 = Quite a bit 5 = A great deal 1. Doubts that religious writings, such as the Bible, could really be the word of God, because the writings seemed contradictory, irrational, or wrong. 2. Doubts about the existence of a benevolent, good God, caused by the suffering or death of someone I knew. 3. The feeling that I had not really developed my own ideas about religion, but in stead was just a copy of other people's ideas. (Or, if you were raised in no reli gion, that Christians, Jews, et cetera in general do not develop their own ideas, but instead are copies of other people's ideas.) 4. The feeling that religion didn't really make people better; people who went to church were still unkind, cheated on others, et cetera but pretended they were bet ter. 5. The feeling that religion exists basically because people are afraid of death and want to believe life does not end then. 6. The feeling that today's religions are based on a collection of superstitions from the past developed to "explain" things primitive people did not understand. 7. The feeling that religion makes people narrow-minded and intolerant and causes conflict between groups who believe different things. 8. A feeling that the overall religious teachings are contradictory or that they don't make very much sense. 9. Resentment or rebelliousness when someone (say, a minister, priest, or rabbi) tried to tell me how I should behave or what I should believe. (If you were raised in no religion, how resentful would you have been had this happened?) 10. The feeling that religion makes people do stupid things and give up perfectly wholesome pleasures for no good reason. Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies offreedom. San Francisco: Jossey-B ass. Copyright © 1988 Jossey-Bass, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

DOUBTS VIGNETTES (Hunsberger, McKenzie, Pratt, & Pancer, 1993) Philosophical discussion and life experience suggest to us that there may be a variety of root causes of religious doubt. For example, one person may doubt because of apparent confli cts between religion and science, while another may doubt as a response to personal tragedy. In order to assess the degree to which var ious sources of doubt are germane to a partic

ular case, Hunsberger, McKenzie, Pratt, and Pancer (1993 ) wrote a set of short vignettes, each of which is intended to be sensitive to a different reason for doubting. Ten vignettes ' were prepared. The subject was instructed to read each one and then answer the following question : "How much religious doubt do es ~ this type of issue arouse for you?" Response \ alternatives could range from 0 (no doubt at all) to lO (a great deal of doubt). The ten vignettes assessed doubt rooted in the following causes: science versus religion

)

104

MEASURES OF RELIGIOSITY

controversy, a specific event such as the death of a close friend, truth claims of other religions, challenges to traditional teachings by scholars of religion, violation of self-in terest such as unanswered prayer, shortcom ings of organized religion, the idea that God may be a mere human projection, the failure of religious claims such as faith healing, and the perception that there is no need for God in attempts to explain the universe. Responses to all of the vignettes corre lated positively with the response to a single item, "If you were brought up under some religious influence, to what extent have you doubted the religious beliefs taught?" Re sponses to 8 of the 10 vignettes correlated negatively with religious emphasis during

childhood ; the remammg 2 correlations were almost o. The correlations between the scores for all vignettes and present and past church attendance were negative. These trends also held for the total vignette score. These findings suggest that this method ology for measuring doubt, particularly its ability to pinpoint the particular source of that doubt, has potential for future research.

Location: Hun sberger, B., McKenzie, B., Pratt, M., & Pancer, s. M. (1 993). Religious doubt: A social psychological analysis. In M. Lynn & D. Moberg (Eds .), Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion (Vol. 5, pp. 27-51). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Appendix B Doubt Vignettes 1. Darwin's theory of evolution has gained a good deal of acceptance in the scientific community. Can Darwin's theory and the Bible's story of creation both be accepted? (Scien tific doubt) 2. Suppose that a very close friend, an excellent student, who has been enjoying fine health, has been killed in a car accident. How can you explain such an incident relative to God's being a loving God? (Doubt generated by a specific event) 3. There are many different world religions, including Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity. Many of these are very old and established, having many believers, and all seem to claim having "the truth." How do you deal with this, based on your religious beliefs? (Religion as self-deception) 4. The Bible says that "God is love" (John 4:7). Life often seems to make that a lie, espe cially if God is believed to be all-powerful. Natural disasters occur where thousands and mil lions die. The famine in Africa is an example of such massive disasters. Has this ever made you doubt that God is all-loving or that He exists at all? (Doubt generated by specific events) 5. Many modern biblical scholars believe that many of the recorded sayings of Jesus were spoken by others, not by Jesus. These scholars suggest that many of the events in Jesus' life as recorded in the Gospels were probably myths used by the Gospel writers to increase the believability of what they wrote. Has any of this ever crossed your mind? (Referential doubt) 6. If often seems that prayers go unanswered. The words don't go beyond the ceiling; they float into the air and are blown away by the merest breeze. Has this happened to you? (Vio lation of self-interest) 7. The Bible teaches that the second commandment is to "love your neighbor as yourself." History shows that in the name of Christ, many atrocities have been committed. The war be tween the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland might be an example of Christians' hypocriti cally practicing their faith. Does this ever cause you to doubt Christianity? (Shortcomings of organized religion) 8. Some people question the basis of religious beliefs , considering them to be man's cre ation to explain how we came to be, rather than the divine inspiration of God as the Bible

/'1


105

would have us believe. To believe in God is thus really just a way of deceiving ourselves. (God as a projection) 9. Faith healers become well-known quickly, and reportedly "cure" serious physical ill ness. Often, however, such healings simply don't occur. The healer is unsuccessful. Has this ever caused you to doubt that God can heal? (Ritual doubt) 10. The more that scientists discover about the universe, the more it might seem that God is not present. There seems to be no physical place for heaven or hell, and in fact, science seems to explain the universe without any need to bring up the concept of "God." Has this ever crossed your mind? Have you ever doubted the existence of God? (Reactive and nega tivistic doubt) Hunsberger, B. , McKenzie, B., Pratt, M., & Pancer, S. M. (1 993). Religious doubt: A social-psychologi cal analysis. In M. Lynn & D. Moberg (Eds .), Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion (Vol. 5, pp. 27-51 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Copyright © 1993 JAI Press. Reprinted with permission.

SECRET DOUBTS (Altemeyer, 1988) The above two ways of measuring doubt en able us to assess those hesitancies about reli gion that people can easily admit. But some people may have secret doubts about what they have been taught that they have never shared with another person. These would nat urally be difficult to access, but Altemeyer (1988, pp. 152-153) developed a clever methodology for getting a glimpse of them. Over 400 students in his general psychol ogy course had learned about the "Hidden Observer" phenomenon in hypnosis re search. The Hidden Observer is a technique used in hypnosis research to see if subjects will reveal experiences that the hypnotist has told them do not exist. For example, your arm may be submerged in a bucket of ice water, which ought to feel very painful,

but your hypnotized self feels no conscious pain (due to hypnotic suggestion to feel no pain). However, the Hidden Observer is aware that it hurts and can admit such if

asked. With this knowledge about the "Hid den Observer" phenomenon as a back ground, the students were later given the in structions contained in Appendix C. Of the 200 subjects for whom Altemeyer reports data, 101 high (top quartile) and 99 low (bottom quartile) in right-wing authori tarianism, one fourth (50) of them said that the Hidden Observer indicated "secret doubts that s/he had kept strictly to her/himself." The high authoritarians are more likely to firmly adhere to conservative religious be liefs. Yet for them, the Hidden Observer ex pressed secret doubts, ones that had never been shared with another person, at a rate of approximately one third. This method can be adapted in order to explore feelings, opin ions, or tendencies that a person or group may not be inclined to openly discuss.

J

Location :

Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies offre edom: Un de rstanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Fran

cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Appendix C Secret Doubts Scale INSTRUCTIONS You may recall the lecture on hypnosis dealing with Hilgard's research on the "Hidden Ob server." Suppose there is a Hidden Observer in you, which knows your every thought and deed, but which only speaks when it is safe to do so, and when directly spoken to. This question is for

106


your Hidden Observer: Does this person (that is, you) have doubts that (s)he was created by an Almighty God who will judge each person and take some into heaven for eternity while casting others into hell forever? Choose one of the following answers: Yes, (s)he has secret doubts which (s)he has kept strictly to herself/himself that this

is really true.

Yes, (s)he has such doubts, but others (such as parents and friends) know (s)he has

these doubts.

No, (s)he totally believes this, and has no doubts whatsoever.

Yes, in fact (s)he openly says (s)he does not believe there is a God or an afterlife, but

(s)he has some secret worries there might be.

Yes, in fact (s)he openly says (s)he does not believe there is a God .or an afterlife,

and (s)he has no doubts about this whatsoever.

(emphasis in original) Altemeyer, B. (1988) . Enemies offreedom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Coyright © 1988 Jossey-Bass, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

2.10

RELIGIOUS PRESSURES SCALE (Altemeyer, 1988)

Reviewed by Bruce Hunsberger

Variable: The Religious Pressures Scale (RPS) measures the extent to which a person might feel pressure to remain religious in the face of doubts about religious teachings. The scale is intended to be a companion to Alte meyer's (1 988) Religious Doubts scale, also reviewed in this volume. The RPS was devel oped in the context of Altemeyer's work on right-wing authoritarianism and its link with religion (Altemeyer's, 1988). Description: Respondents are asked to indi cate the extent to which they have had 10 fee lings of pressure about religion, using a 6-point response fo rmat. Response alterna tives include 0 (none at all) , 1 (only a little bit), 2 (a mild amount), 3 (a moderate amount), 4 (quite a bit), and 5 (a great deal). The total scale score is determined by a summation of the 10 item scores. Practical Considerations: This paper-and pencil measure is straightforward to use, re quiring no special examiner skill to admin ister, score, or interpret. The test has been used both with university students and their

parents in Canada. It appears to be suitable for adolescent through adult samples in sim ilar cultures.

Norms/Standardization: Two primary sam ples were used in the initial work with this scale. Four hundred twenty-three introduc tory psychology students completed the scale as part of a course research bonus credit system. Also, 506 of these students' parents responded to the scale, which was part of a questionnaire package sent and re turned by regular mail. Average scores on the scale were 18. 1 for the students and 21.1 for the parents; variance was 154 and 2 18 for students and parents, respectively (Alte meyer, 1988). Reliability : For the university student sam ple, the average interitem correlation for these 10 items was .47, with a resulting Cronbach's alpha of .90. For the sample of parents, the mean interitem correlation was .54 and Cronbach's alpha was .92.

Scales of Religious A ttitudes

Validity: Altemeyer (1 988) provided docu mentation regarding correlations between the RPS and other measures of religion and authoritarianism. These relationships are in the expected directions and are robust and highly significant. For example, correlations between Religious Pressures scores and other measures developed by Altemeyer (1 988), for the student and parent samples respectively, were the following: Right Wmg Authoritarianism (.47 , .50), Religious Emphasis (in the childhood home) (.59, .43), and Religious Doubts (-.36, -.25). Comparable correlations for other scales in luded Fullerton and Hunsberger's (1982) Christian Orthodoxy scale (.69, .58), and Allport and Ross ' (1967) Intrinsic Religious Orientation (.69, .64) and Extrinsic Reli ~ous Orientation (-.23, -.30) scales. The correlations with a single-item measure of church attendance were .60 and .57 for the two groups respectively. Further, Altemeyer found that highly reli _gious persons reported feeling under consid erable pressure to maintain their religious beliefs. This information is indirectly re lated to validity issues in the sense that one might expect highly religious persons to re port relatively strong and specific pressures to maintain their religious beliefs. Item analyses indicated that, among his student sample, the strongest reported pressures for highly religious people were the following : parental disappointment and disapproval (M

107

= 4.27, where the highest possible answer was 5.00) and fear of disappointing reli gious authorities (M = 4.15). They were also reportedly afraid that they would feel lost, adrift, having lost their anchor in life (M =:= 3.29), they were ashamed that they had not been strong enough to keep their faith (M = 3.12), and they feared punishment from God (M = 2.95) if they ceased to believe. Among the highly religious parents, the strongest pressures were disappointment/disapproval by ministers (M = 4.34), their children (M = 4.22), and their spouses (M = 3.97). They also reported that they would feel adrift (M = 4.21) and ashamed (M = 3.77) and that they would have betrayed the ultimate pur pose of their lives (M = 3.72).

Location: Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of Freedom: Un derstanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Fran cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Subsequent Research: None. References

,

Allport, G. w., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Per sonality and Social Psychology, 5,432-443. Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of Freedom: Un derstanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Fran cisco: Jossey-Bass . Fullerton, J. T., & Hunsberger, B. E. (1982). A unidimensional measure of Christian Orthodoxy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21, 317-326.

Appendix The Religious Pressures Scale What do you suppose it would cost you if you dropped your religion and became an agnostic or atheist? How much of the below do you think you would experience? (If you have dropped your religion and would now say you have "none," answer according to how you felt right at the time you decided to stop believing in that religion.)

)

o = none at all

I = only a little bit

2 = a mild amount

3 = a moderate amount

4 = quite a bit

5 = a great deal

--

108

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

MEASURES O F RELIGIOSITY

Disappointment, disapproval of parents. Disappointment, disapproval of close friends. Disappointment, disapproval of ministers, priests, et cetera. It would threaten a romantic love relationship. I would feel lost, adrift; I'd have lost my "anchor" in life. I would fear punishment from God. I would fear that without my religious beliefs I would become an evil person. I would be ashamed that I had not been strong enough to keep my faith. I would feel I had betrayed the ulti mate purpose of my life. I would fear being damned and condemned to everlasting fire in hell.

Note. Item 1 is used with student samples. On the parent sample this item was changed to "Disappoint ment, disapproval of your children . (How much would your children disapprove of such a change?)"

Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies offreedom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Coyright © 1988 Jossey-Bass , Inc. Reprinted with permission.

2.11 RELIGIOUS VALUES SCALE (Morrow, Worthington, & McCullough, 1993) Reviewed by Steven J . Sandage

Variable: The Religious Values Scale (RVS) measures individuals' religious attitudes and beliefs and the degree to which she can tol erate others' holding different religious val ues. The scale consists of seven subscales: religious commitment, authority afforded sacred writings, authority afforded religious group identification, authority afforded reli gious leaders, tolerance for others holding different views on Scripture, tolerance for those with different group identifi cation, and tolerance for those with different views regarding the authority of religious leaders. Description: This scale is based on Wor thington's (1 988) model for understanding the values of highly religious clients of psy chothe,'apy. In Worthington's model, clients who are highly committed to their religion will evaluate their interpersonal worlds in terms of three primary value dimensions. These value dimensions are the authority af forded to sacred writings, the authority af forded to religious leaders, and the degree of identification with hi s or her religious group. In addition, Worthington (1988) adds . the notion that each person has a "zone of tolerance" handling the inevitable differ

ences of opinion that occur in this diverse society, The RVS is composed of 62 items that are scored on the same S-point Likert con tinuum scale, with 1 indicating "not at all true of me" and 5 indicating "totally true of me." The subscale item totals are as fol lows: religious commitment (20 items), au thority afforded sacred writings (11 items), authority affo rded religious leaders (8 items), authority afforded religious group identification (8 items), tolerance for differ ent scriptural beliefs (3 items), tolerance for different views of leadership (3 items), and tolerance for different religious groups (3 items).

Practical Considerations: No special skills are required to administer or score thi s paper-and-pencil measure. McCullough and Worthington (1995) divided participants into high an d low levels on each of Wor thington and colleagues' (1988 ) seven con structs based on the means and standard de viations of their present sample of students. Specific directions fo r administration and scoring can be found in the set of materials available on request from Dr. Worthington at Virginia Commonwealth University.


NormslStandardizatio n: Three primary norm samples have been used. All three samples were composed of undergraduate student volunteers at a large southeastern university. The first sample (Worthington et aI., 1988) consisted of 257 students with most being of 18 to 25 years old (88%). The racial composition of this sample was 197 Caucasian (78% ), 43 African-American (17%), and 11 other ethnicity (5 %). African Americans in this sample were signific antly more religious than Caucasians on six of the seven subscales . The second sample (Worthington et aI., 1989) consisted of 252 students . Since the theory is thought to apply only to highly re ligious people, only the top one third of the sample were selected based on their scores according to religious commitment. The third sample (McCullough & Wor thington, 1995) consisted of 148 students. The racial composition of this sample was 104 Caucasian (70%), 29 African-American (21%), 6 Asian (4% ), and 9 other ethnicity (5%). Collectively, these three groups formed the standardization sample. Reliability: With the first sample (Worthing ton et ai., 1988), estimates of internal consis tency using Cronbach's alpha were calcu lated for the seven empirical factors found through principle components factor analysis with varimax rotation. A factor loading of .45 was considered the minimum for inclusion of an item on a factor. The tolerance for those holding different views of Scripture scale was not supported and was replaced by a fac tor labeled "preference for a counselor of similar attitudes." Cronbach's alphas for the seven factors ranged from .99 for religious commitment to .47 for preference for a coun selor of similar attitudes. In the second sample (Worthington et aI., 1989), estimates of internal consistency were generally higher and were calculated for the six scales corresponding to the original the ory (Worthington, 1988). Cronbach's alphas ranged from .84 for authority afforded sacred writings to .64 for tolerance for others hold ing different views on Scripture. Individual item-to-scale correlation were reported, and

109

items with low item to total scale correlations were dropped from analysis. In the third sample (McCullough & Wor thington, 1995), estimates of internal con sistency were calculated for the seven origi nal subscales. Cronbach's alphas ranged from .92 for the religious commitment sub scale to .73 for the authority afforded reli gious groups and the tolerance for different views of leadership subscales.

Validity: Worthington et al. (1988) exam ined the construct validity of the RVS by conducting principle components factor analysis using varimax rotation. The princi ple components analysis found seven fac tors and generally supported the theoretical factor structure. Pearson correlations were also calculated between each scale of the RVS and self-re ports of church attendance, attendance at other church meetings, participation in reli gious leadership, and number of leadership positions held. Of the 28 correlations, 25 were significant (p = .01). The RVS scales were correlated with the 11 subscales of the Basic Religiosity Scales (King & Hunt, 1972). Of 77 correlations, 74 were significant (p = .01 ), with most corre lations ranging between .4 and .8. The RVS scales were also correlated with the four subscales of Glock and Stark's (1 965) scale. No significant correla tions were found between the seven RVS scales and biblical knowledge. Of the reli gious belief, practice, and experience sub scales, 19 of 21 correlations were signifi cant. Worthington et aI. (1 989) conducted con firmatory factor analysis of the RVS. The goodness of fit index of .61 was below the acceptable value of .9, so the theoretical model was not supported. The same data was subjected to expi oratory factor analysis. Eight factors were identified. The scale that was thought to measure the authority of Scripture appeared to include two components-a value of Scripture in daily life and a doctrinal belief in the authority of Scripture. The scale thought to measure authority of group iden

~

I

j

MEASURES OF RE LIGIOSITY

I 10

tification appeared to include two compo nents, also-personally valuing the group and looking to the group to provide norms for behavior. The scale thought to measure the authority afforded religious leaders was supported. The hypothetical structure of tol erance for people with different religious views was not validated. Instead, the three factors revealed showed a preference for similarly religious people who (1) give ad vice, (2) give counsel, and (3) provide affil iation. Overall, it is clear that reasonable ef fort s have been exerted to establish the reliablility and validity of the RVS.

Location: For a copy of the Religious Val ues Scale, contact Dr. Everett Worthington Jr. Department of Psychology Virginia Commonwealth University 808 West Franklin Street Richmond, VA 23284-2018 Subsequent Research: McCullough, M . E., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1995 ). College students' perceptions of a psy chotherapist's treatment of a religious issue: Partial

replication and extension. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73,626- 34.

References Glock, c., & Stark, R. (1965). Religion and so ciety in tension. Chicago: Rand McNally. King, M. B. , & Hunt, R. A. (1972). Measuring the religious variable: Replication. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11 , 240-251. Morrow, D. , Worthington, E. L., & McCullough, M. E. (1993). Observers' perceptions of a coun selor's treatment of a religious issue. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 452-456. Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1988). Understanding the values of religious clients: A model and its ap plication to counseling. Journal of Counseling Psy chology, 35,166-174. Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hsu, K., Gowda, K. K., & Bleach, E. (1988, November). Preliminary tests of Worthington's (1988) theory of important values in religious counseling. Paper presented at the First International Congress on Christian Counseling, Atlanta. Worthington, E. L., Jr., Berry, J. T. , Hsu, K., Gowda, K. K., Bleach, E ., & Bursley, K. H. (1989, October). Measuring religious values: Factor ana lytic study of the Religious Values Survey. Paper presented at the meeting of the Virginia Psycholog ical Association, Richmond.

Appendix Religious Values Scale Instructions: After each of the following 62 statements circle one of the numbers (l through 5) that best describes how true the statement is of you. 1 = Not at all true of me 2 = Somewhat true of me 3 = Moderately true of me

4 = Mostly true of me

S = Totally true of me

1. I am concerned that my behavior and speech reflect the teachings of my religion. 2. I do not accept what I hear in regard to religious beliefs without first questioning the va lidity of it. 3. It is important to me to conform to my religious standards of behavior. 4. I enjoy spending time with others of my religious affiliation. S. Religious beliefs influence all my dealings in life. 6. It is important to me to spend periods of time in private religious thought and medita tion.

j


11

7. I feel there are many more important things in life than religion. 8. I enjoy working in the activities of my religious organization. 9. I keep well informed about my local religious group and I have some influence on its de cisions.

10. I make financial contributions to my religious organization. 11. I often read books and magazines about my faith. 12. I spend time trying to grow in understanding of my faith. 13. I have personally tried to convert someone to my faith. 14. I talk about my religion with friends, neighbors, or fellow workers. 15. Religion is especially important to me because it answers many questions about the meaning of life. 16. My religious beliefs lie behind my whole approach to life. 17. I would break fellowship with my local religious group if there were things being said of me that are damaging and untrue. 18. I am willing to be persecuted for my religious beliefs. 19. My living environment (room, apartment, house, office) reflects my religious beliefs (i.e., posters, plaques, bumper stickers). 20. I would publicly defend my religious beliefs. 21. I believe the scriptures of my faith are completely true. 22. I think it is important to obey my faith's scripture.

,

23 . My faith's scriptures have practical value in the modern world. 24. I read my faith 's scriptures almost every day. 25 . I memorize my faith's scriptures. 26. I depend on my faith's scriptures to help me make decisions in conflict situations. 27 . I have experienced the usefulness of my faith's scriptures in my daily life. 28. It is important to understand the historical significance of my faith 's scriptures. 29. I understand my faith's scriptures. 30. I like to study my faith's scriptures. 31. I believe that my faith 's scriptures are important but other books of wisdom are equally important. 32. I enjoy being with people whose attitudes toward my faith's scriptures are similar to own.

my~

33. I prefer to take advice from people whose attitude toward my faith's scriptures is similar to my own. 34. If I went to counseling, I would like a counselor whose attitude toward my faith' s scrip tures is similar to mine. 35. What other members of my religious group expect of me is important. 36. I avoid doing things that members of my local religious group would disapprove of. 37. I feel accepted by the members of my local religious group. 38. I share the goals of the members of my local religious group.

I 12

MEASURES OF RE LIGIOSITY

39. The standards of my local religiou s group guide me in making decisions. 40. If I have a conflict with what my local religious group tells me is right, I go along with the religious group. 4l. I couldn't get along without involvement in my local religious group. 42. Being recognized by non-members as a member of my local religious group gives me a good feeling. 43. I can get along with the goals of my local religious group but not with the overall goals of the whole organization (e.g., national or world-wide religious group). 44. I prefer the local chapter of my religious group to the larger overall organization. 45. The goals of my local religious organization are the same as the goals of the entire orga nization. 46. It is more important to me to belong to a particular part of my religious group than to think of myself as merely Christian or Jewish or Muslim (or other faith). 47. I enjoy being with people in my local religious group more than people who are not in that group. 48. I enjoy being with people who belong to my overall religious organization. 49. I prefer not to take advice from people outside my local religious group. 50. I prefer not to take advice from people outside my overall religious organization. 51. If I went to counseling, I would like a counselor whose faith is similar to mine. 52. It is a religious duty for me to obey governmental authorities. 53. One should follow the guidance of one 's pastor, priest, or rabbi without question or com plaint. 54. It is a religious obligation for children to obey their parents . 55 . Husbands should exercise wise, loving authority over their wives. 56. It is a religious obligation even for adults to obey their parents. 57. When counselors make suggestions, they should be obeyed. 58 . When the board of elders (or the leaders of a local religious group) take a stand, the con gregation should follow their leading. 59. One should obey the leader(s) of one's organized religion (e.g., Pope, President of de nomination, or other leader). 60. I enjoy being with people who share my attitudes toward human authorities. 6l. I prefer not to take advice from people whose attitudes toward human authorities differs from my own. 62. If I went in to counseling, I would like a counselor whose attitude toward human au thorities is similar to mine. Reprinted with permission of the authors.


1 13

2.12 THE SOCIAL-RELIGIOUS-POLITICAL SCALE (KATZ, 1984, 1988)

Reviewed by Leslie J. Francis

Variable: The S ocial-R eligious-Political Scale was designed to measure social, reli gious, and political attitudes of adult re spondents. The two axes of the scale are de fined as lib eral and conservative . The fundamental difference between the liberal position and the conservative position con cerns the extent to which the respondent is open to individuals from other religious de nominations or political persuasions. Description : The author began by collating approximately 200 items from various atti tude scales as well as adding original items pertinent to the constructs under considera tion. T hese items were presented to 10 j udges who were requested to judge the face validity of the items. A total of 60 items sur vived this process : 20 relevant to social atti tudes, 20 relevant to political attitudes, and 20 relevant to religious attitudes. Originally compiled in English, the in strument was translated into Afrikaans. The development of the present in strument eme rged from factor analyses of the re sponses of 2 10 white South African teacher trainee s, 110 of whom were English speak ers and 100 Afrikaans speakers, as well as 100 u ndergraduates, 50 of whom sp oke English and 50 Afri kaans. Factor analysis identified two factors, one of which was la beled "religious attitudes" and the other of which was labeled "sociopolitical atti tudes ." In its present form the scale contains 20 items. Each item is assessed on as-point scale ranging from 1 to 5. The five points are anchored as follows: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree. The first group of 12 items is concerned with the importance of religious affiliation; the second group of 8 items is concerned with the importance of political persuasion. Scale scores are com puted as the p roduct of the two separate sets of items. This means that scores on the reli

gious subscale range between 12 and 60 and scores on the social-political subscale range between 8 and 40. In both cases a low score indicates a conservative attitude and a high score indicates a liberal attitude.

Practical Considerations : This paper-and pencil measure requires no special examiner skill to administer, score, or interpret. Mini mal instructions are provided. Face validity of the scale is high in that items are clearly related to either the religious or the political dimension . The clear assumption of the items is that the individual respondents are both religiously and politically committed. The scale may appear inappropriate when these assumptions are not met.

Norms/Standardization: Using the original sample of 310 white South African stu dents, a principal components analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the data. Salient item loadings were set at the .30 level; factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1.00 and explaining more than 10% of the variance were retained. A scree-test served as an additional criterion. The au thor has publi shed no normative scores from this sample.

Reliability: The author reports alpha relia b ility coefficients of .92 for the whole scale, and .94 and .93 for the religious atti tudes and sociopolitical attitudes subscales respectively. Individual item-to- subscale correlations were not reported. Factor load ings on the religious attitudes sub scale ranged between .30 and .75. Factor load ings on the sociopolitical subscale ranged between .31 and .73. It needs to be stated, however, that these published figures are for a 25-item version of the instrument rather than for the 20-item instrument pro vided by the author.

Validity: No data have been provided on the validity of the scale in addition to the self

MEASU RES OF R ELIGIOSITY

114

evident face validity suggested by the items themselves.

Location: Katz, Y. J. (1984). The influence of some atti tudes on intelligence. Unpublished Ph.D. disserta tion, University of the Witwatersrand. Katz, Y. J. (1988). A validation of the social-re ligious-political scale. Educational and Psychologi cal Measurement, 48, 1025-1028.

Subsequent Research: The instrument has not been employed in any subsequent re search. An earlier and shorter version was used by Katz (1976) in the medium of He brew. Katz, Y. J. (1976). An investigation of social in tegration after the establishment of junior high schools in the Israeli educational system. Unpub lished M.A. dissertation, Bar-IJan University, Is rael.

Appendix The Social-Religious-Political Scale Please use the following scale to answer each item below. 1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = uncertain

= disagree

5 = strongly disagree

4

1. I am often conscious of my affiliation to a certain religious denomination. 2. My religious denomination is morally superior to other religious denominations.

3. I prefer to work in the company of people belonging to my religious denomination. 4. I like to spend my leisure time with members of my religious denomination only. 5. My family objects to my befriending members of religious denominations different from mIlle. 6. I have no soc ial relationships with members of religious denominations other than mine. 7. It should be forbidden for members of one religious denomination to marry members of another religious denomination. 8. When I consider forging a friendship with a person I have just met, I always take his re ligious denomination into consideration. 9. When choosing a home it is im portant to take the religious denomination of the neigh bors into consideration. 10. When considering marriage it is important to take the religious affiliation of one's future spouse into consideration. 11. Praise heaped on a member of my religious denomination gratifies me personally. 12. I generally find a common bond with members of my religious denomination only. 13. My political persuasion is morally superior to other political persuasions. 14. I prefer to work in the company of people belonging to my political persuasion. 15. I would like to spend my leisure time with members of my political persuasion only. 16. I have no social relationships with members of political persuasions other than mine. 17. When I consider forging a friendship with a person I have just met, I always take his po litical persuasion into consideration.


1 15

18 . When choosing a home it is important to take the political persuasions of the neighbors into consideration. 19. Praise heaped on someone of my political persuasion gratifies me personally. 20. I generally find a common bond with members of my political persuasion only. Reprinted with permission of the author.

2.13

SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS CONCERNS QUESTIONNAIRE

(Silber & Reilly, 1985)

Reviewed by Steven J. Sandage

Variable: The Spiritual and Religious Con cerns Questionnaire (SRQ) measures the pi ritual and religious beliefs, attitudes, needs , and behaviors of adolescents. The scale was designed to assess the spiritual and religious concerns of newly hospital ized patients in an adolescent inpatient unit. The main purpose of the scale is to provide clinically useful information that might pro ve useful to caregivers in delivering more foc used and wholistic services. Description: The SRQ is not based on any particular theoretical orientation. Silber and Reilly (1 985) asserted that the intensity of an adolescent's spiritual and religious con cerns would increase following hospitaliza tion in proportion to the severity of his or her illness. The SRQ consists of 11 items scored on a 9-point Likert continuum scale with I indi cating low spiritual and/or religious concern and 9 indicating high spiritual and/or reli gious concern. The Likert response cate gories are not consistent across items. The overall SRQ score is obtained by averaging all eleven items. The authors included a final item asking patients if they "would like help with any of your spiritual and/or reli gious concerns. " This item was an wered yes or no and space was provided to pecify the kind of help desired. Practical Considerations: Silber and Reilly (1 985) used trained volunteers to administer rhe SRQ. No guidelines were offered on re quired reading level or time of administra tion. The authors do not describe any spe

cial instructions for administration, but it would seem important that the purpose and rationale for giving the scale should be ex plained to hospitalized adolescents.

Norms/Standardization: Specialized norms for the SRQ have not been developed. The original sample consisted of 114 newly hos pitalized adolescents in an adolescent inpa tient unit. The participants ranged in age from 11 to 19 years of age with equal repre sentation in early (11- 13 years), middle (14 15 years), and late (1 6-19 years) adoles cence categories . Thirty-nine participants were male and 75 were female. The ethnic composition of the sample consisted of 58 African-American, 54 Caucasian, and 2 Asian participants. The vast majority (92) of the participants attended a public school. Participants were separated into three cate gories of severity of illness, including (a) severe with high probability of being fatal (24 patients), (b) severe (53 patients), (c) moderate (37 patients). Mean scores on the SRQ ranged from a low of 2.45 for early adolescents to a high of 2.94 for older adolescents. This trend was not statistically significant. Mean scores for females (2.5 9) were significantly higher than mean scores for males (2.33). African Americans had higher mean scores (2.58) than Caucasians (2.4 1). The most seriously ill participants had higher SRQ scores re gardless of gender or ethnicity. Reliability: No analysis of the reliability of the SRQ was reported.

1 16

M EASURES OF RELIGIOSIT Y

Validity : Silber and Reilly (1985) were par ticularly interested in the relationship be tween changes in adolescent spiritual and/or religious concerns and severity of illness. Item 3 assesses changes in the patient's spir itual and/or religious concerns since his or her illness began, and item 10 assesses changes in frequency of prayer since enter ing the hospital. There was a significant severity of illness trend for scores on both of these items, with higher scores indicating more serious illness. The wording of item 3 inquires about changes in spiritual and/or religiou s concerns "since your illness began," not since hospitalization. This pre sents an inconsistency in that a patient's ill ness may have begun well before hospital

ization. The measure appears to have fine "face validity."

Location : Silber, T. J., & Reilly, M. (1985). Spiritual and religious concerns of the hospitalized adolescent. Adolescence, 20, 217- 224.

Subsequent Research : Silber indicated through personal communication that he is currently working on further validation of the SRQ. Information about the SRQ can be obtained by contacting Tomas J. Silber, M.D. Department of Adolescent Medicine Children's Medical Center 10011 Michigan Ave. NW Washington, DC 20010

Appendix Patient Questionnaire on Spiritual and Religious Concerns (SRQ) 1. Sex: 2. Age: 3. Race: 4. School: 5. Religious affiliation: 6. Medical diagnosis:

7. While you are in the hospital, how often do you talk about spiritual and/or religious con cerns?

1

2

3

4

Never

5

6

7

8

Average

9 Very Often

8. Do you consider yourself a person with spiritual and/or religious concerns?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Average

Not religious and/or spiritual at all

9 Very religious and/or spiritual

9. Have you had any changes in your concerns relating to spiritual and/or religious matters since your illness began?

1

2

Much less interested

3

4

5

6

7

8

No change

10. Do you believe in God (Supreme Being)? 12 45 3 6 I don't I sometimes believe believe

9 Much more interested

7

8

9 I believe firmly


11 7

11. If you believe in God (Supreme Being), how do you feel toward God (Supreme Being)?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Indifferent, don't care

Angry, abandoned

9 Confident, grateful

12. Have your feelings toward God (Supreme Being) changed since your illness began?

1

2

345

I feel negative about God (Supreme Being)

678

9 I feel more positive about God (Supreme Being)

No change

13 . Mark the numeral you feel relates best to your illness.

1

2

345

14. How often do you pray? 12 3 Never

6

7

8

9 God (Supreme Being) willed my illness

7

8

9 Often

7

8

9 More than before

8

9 Very much

I don 't know if God (Supreme Being) is involved in my illness

God (Supreme Being) has nothing to do with my illness

4

5 6 Sometimes

15. Since you have come to the hospital, do you pray?

1

2

Less than before

345

6

Unchanged

16. If you pray about illness answer the following question: Prayer has helped . . .

1

2

Not at all

345

6

7

Some

17. How often do you participate in organized spiritual and/or religious activities?

1 Never

2

345 Average

6

7

8

9 Very often (at least weekly)

18. Would you like help with any of your spiritual and/or religious concerns? _ _ Yes (If yes, what kind of help?) No Silber, T. J. , & Reilly, M. (1985). Spiritual and religious concerns of the hospitalized adolescent. Adoles cence, 20, 217-224. Copyright © 1985 Libro Publications, Inc . Reprinted with permission.

Chapter 3

Scales of Religious Orientation Note: The editors are indebted to Christopher Burris, who wrote portions of this introduction as background material in his review of the Allport and Ross Religious Orientation Scale (3.9). It was readily apparent that his material should be incorporated into this chapter introduction rather than embedded in the review of the Allport and Ross scale.

The 10 scales selected for inclusion in this chapter all center around the single most dominant research paradigm in the psychology of religion-religious orientation. It was the development of a single scale, the Religious Orientation Scale (3.9) by Allport and Ross, that probably did more that anything else to foster the empirical investigation of how one approaches religion. Religious orientation has dominated the research land scape in the psychology of religion so much that we would be remiss not to devote an entire chapter to a review of its measures. The conceptual background of the religious orientation scale dates from the post-World War II period. This was the era of the "authoritarian personality" (Adorno, Frenkel Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950), when North American psychologists in particular were engaged in a frenzied search for "markers" that might aid in identifying persons most likely to endorse ethnocentric ideologies akin to Nazism. One such marker implicated in early research by Gordon Allport (e.g., Allport & Kramer, 1946)-a devout Episcopalian and an extremely influential figure in contemporary personality and social psychology (Wulff, 1997)-was religious involvement. That is, data indicated that belonging to and/or attending a church rather consistently predicted greater self-reported endorsement of more prejudiced attitudes than the absence of such religious participation (at least among white North American Christians; see Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993, chap. 9, for a re view). Perhaps as an attempt to temper the implications of this disturbing finding, Allport (1950), in his landmark The Individual and His Religion, asserted that not all religion is created equal; that is, although any two individuals might engage in similar religious be haviors, such as church attendance, their underlying motives may differ, depending on the "maturity" of their respective "religious sentiments." Conceptual differentiation of the clearly value-laden "mature" and "immature" religious sentiments eventually gave way to discussion of the less judgmentally labeled "intrinsic" (religion as master motive whereby one "lives" his or her religion) and "extrinsic" (religion as convenience whereby one "uses" his or her religion) religious orientations, which were subjected to a succession of operationalization attempts culminating in Allport and Ross (3.9). In that investigation, ex trinsically oriented individuals tended to report greater prejudice than did intrinsically ori ented individuals, as Allport had suspected (although the import of such findings with self report measures remains open to question; see Batson & Burris, 1994). Unfortunately, additional conceptual clarification and empirical research concerning I 19

120

MEASURES OF RELIGIOSIT Y

the religious orientation framework by Allport himself were cut short by his death in 1967. Nonetheless, research by others has mushroomed so much that the religious orien tation scale and its various spin-offs included for review in this chapter are among the most frequently used measures in the psychology of religion (see Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990, for further discussion). Allport's conceptualization has not gone unchallenged, however. Indeed, it has been suggested (e.g., Wulff, 1997) that Allport's uncanny popu larity among psychologists of religion may have as much or more to do with his apos tolic reputation than with the conceptual soundness of his religious ori entation frame work or the instruments used to assess it. Because of the heuristic value of Allport's framework and because the Allport and Ross scale has been used so frequently for em pirical research, the review of the measure itself (3.9) is more detailed than what is typ ically found in this volume. Among the scales reviewed in this chapter are several that are modifications of the original Allport and Ross measure. Hoge's Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale (3.6) differs from Allport and Ross in two regards: (a) the scale is useful for measuring reli gious orientation in some religions outside a Christian context and (b) intrinsic and ex trinsic religious motivation anchor opposite ends of one dimension instead of represent ing two separate dimensions, as they do in the Allport and Ross scale. The Duke Religion Index (3 .4) authored by Koenig and his colleagues is a brief scale of intrinsic religiousness (along with two other dimensions: organizational and nonorganizational religiousness) where three items of Hoge's intrinsic measure were extracted. Gorsuch and Venable's Age Universal Religious Orientation Scale (3.4) is interchangeable with the Allport and Ross scale but, unlike the earlier scale, does not require a middle adoles cent language ability to complete the scale. The Age Universal Scale can be used with children as young as the fifth grade. However, based on Kirkpatrick's (1989) reanalysis of data from several studies using the Allport and Ross scale showing that the extrinsic scale subdivides into a personal oriented (Ep) and social oriented (Es) extrinsicness, the Age Universal Scale itself was revised in 1989 by Gorsuch and McPherson (3.10). Also, Allen and Spilka's Committed-Consensual Measures (3.3) of religion have much overlap with the Allport and Ross scale but stress the cognitive structure of beliefs rather than belief content. Finally, King and Hunt's Religious Position Scale (3 .11) operationalizes Allport's intrinsic dimension in terms of "cognitive salience," or the degree to which re ligion is deeply significant. The extrinsic religious orientation, also measured in the King and Hunt scale, is conceptualized along the lines of Allport. Some scales have been developed within the religious orientation tradition as a concep tual and measurement reaction to Allport and Ross. The most noted reaction has been the study of religion as quest, where religion is understood as "an open-ended process of pur suing ultimate questions more than ultimate answers" (Batson, N aifeh, & Pate, 1978, p. 40). The champion of this position is Dan Batson. Along with colleagues, he developed the Quest Scale, the most recent version of which (1991), by Batson and Schoenrade, is re viewed in this volume (3.7). Batson's quest concept and scale are not, however, free of criticism. Arguing that their own conceptualization is more in line with Allport's thinking, Dudley and Cruise have developed an alternative measure to the Quest Scale, the Reli gious Maturity Scale (3.8), replacing Batson's emphasis on doubt with a tentative open mindedness, even as one seeks to find a faith worthy of sincere commitment. Another reaction to the Allport and Ross index led to the development of the Indis criminate Proreligiousness Scale (3.5) by Pargament and his colleagues. Allport criti

Scales of Religious Orientation

12 1

cized the logic of those "muddleheads" who scored high on both the intrinsic and extrin sic orientations. Pargament et al. responded that scoring high on the two orientations is not necessarily logically inconsistent in that people may both "live" (intrinsic) and "use" (extri nsic) their religion. The other index included in this chapter measures religious orientation outside of the intrinsic-extrinsic research framework. The Christian Religious Internalization Scale (3.2) developed by Ryan, Rigby, and King assesses the degree to which Christian beliefs are internalized versus introjected. References Adorno, T. W. , Frenkel-Brunswik, E. , Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian per sonality . New York: Harper & Row. Allport, G. W. (1 950). The individual and his religion. New York: MacMillan. Allport, G. w., & Kramer, B. M. (1946). Some roots of prejudice. Journal of Psychology, 22, 9-30. Batson, C . D., Naifeh, S. J., & Pate, S. (1978). Social desirability, religious orientation, and racial prej u dice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17, 31-41 . Batson, C. D., & Burris, C. T. (1994). Personal religion: Depressant or stimulant of prejudice and dis crimination? In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The seventh Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology: The psychology of prejudice (pp. 149-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (\993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychologi cal perspective. New York: Oxford. Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1 989). A psychometric analysis of the Allport-Ross and Feagin measures of intrinsic extrinsic religious orientation. In D. O. Moberg & M. L. Lynn (Eds.), Research in the Social Scientific Study ofReligion, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: J AI Press. Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hood, R. w., Jr. (1990). Intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation: The boon or bane of contemporary psychology of religion ? Jou rnal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 442-462. Wulff, D. M . (1997) . Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary. New York: Wiley.

3.1

AGE UNIVERSAL RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION SCALE

(Gorsuch & Venable, 1983)

Reviewed by Peter C. Hill

Variable : The Age Universal Intrinsic-Ex trinsic Religious Orientation Scale contains two separate subscales designed to measure two distinct religious orientations: an intrinic (I) and an extrinsic (E) orientation. But, as the name suggests, this scale is useful for both adults and children. Since its publica tion in 1983, the scale has been revised based on further psychometric evaluation ( ee Gorsuch & McPherson this volume). Description: This scale is a modified verion of the Allport and Ross (1967) I-E Re ligious Orientation scale where each item is a rewritten version of the original. It is com pletely interchangeable with the Allport and Ross scale. Whereas the original scale re quires language ability beyond that of the

typical child or younger adolescent, this scale reliably measures religious orientation on children as young as the fifth grade as well as adults. Nineteen of the 20 items are scored on the same 5-point Likert continuum scale, with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5 indicating strong agreement with each state ment. The other item, part of the I subscale, measures the frequency of church atten dance, also on a 5-point Likert continuum where 1 indicates "a few times a year or less" and 5 indicates "more than once a week." Like the Allport and Ross scale, the 9 in trinsic and the 11 extrinsic items should be scored separately, since they apparently re

122

MEASURES OF R ELIGIOSIT Y

fl ect independent di mens io ns rather than two unipolar constructs (see the discu ssion under "Results and comments" on the I-E Religious Orientation Scale of Allport and Ross, 1967). The score of each subscale is determined by summing the scores of the 9 or 11 items, thus prov iding ranges of 9 to 45 for the I measure and II to 55 for the E measure.

Practical Considerations: This paper-and pencil measure requires no special exam iner skill to administer, score, or interpret. No instructions are provided, nor are they necessary beyond the usu al guarantee of confidentiality and the emphasis on no "right" or "wrong" answers as an attempt to diffu se a socially desirable response ten dency. The purpose of the test is clear: to measure I and E reli gious orientations in a fashion su itable for both children and adults. Face validity of the scale is high in that items are clearly related to either the I or the E orientation. Norms/Standardization : Two primary sam ples were used. The first sample consisted of 101 "adult Protestant Christian volun teers" from six churches and a college dor mitory. Adults were necessary to correlate the Allport and Ross items with the rewrit ten items of the Age Universal Scale. In some cases there were multiple rewritten items with the highest correlating item (to the corresponding Allport and Ross item) selected. The second sample consisted of 138 fifth and 119 seventh graders of various levels of verbal comprehension, as measured by the Altus (1948) Information Inventory. The au thors maintained that children at a given grade level with lower verbal abilities should respond with equal reliability as those with higher verbal abilities if the scale claims to be useful at that particular grade level. As noted later, a precaution is neces sary with children below the seventh grade who score low on measures of verbal com prehension. Reliability : With the first sample of adult Protestant volunteers, internal consistency

reliability coefficients were .66 for the E subscale and .73 for the I subscale. These coefficients compare with .70 and .73 re spectively with the same subjects on the Allport and Ross (1967) scale. Individual item-to-subscale correlations were not re ported. The correlation between I and E subscales was -.39. Among the 230 fifth and seventh-grade students (after 27 stu dents with scores of 0 or 1 on the Informa tion Inventory were dropped; see discussion under "validity") in the follow-up study, the alpha coefficients were .75 for E and .68 for I. The J-E correlation in the follow-up study was - .28 .

Validity : Item-to-item correlations between the Age Universal and the Allport and Ross scales ranged from .34 to .78. The median correlation was .59. Entire subscale correla tions between the Age Universal and the Allport and Ross scales were .90 for I and .79 for E. Negative correlations between I and E were virtually identical for the two scales: -.39 and -.38 respectively. On the basis of these results, the authors conclude that the Age Universal Scale is interchange able with the Allport and Ross scale for both the I and E measures. In the follow-up study reported in the same article, Gorsuch and Venable (1983) included a measure of verbal ability called the Information Inventory (Altus, 1948) as a check on the properties of the Age Univer sal Scale with fifth- and seventh-grade chil dren of varying verbal abilities. Using mul tiple regression, the authors concluded that the Age Universal Scale was appropriate for all but those with the lower verbal abilities below the seventh grade. For a sample of in dividuals below the seventh grade, they rec ommended including the Information Inven tory (which can be group administered in less than five minutes) and exclude those children with abilities at the two lowest lev els from a range of nine levels. Location: Gorsuch, R. L., & Venable, G. D. (1983). Devel opment of an "Age Universal" I-E scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 181 - 187.

l


123

References

Subsequent Research: Griffin, G. A. E., Gorsuch, R. L. , & Davis, A. (1 987) . A cross-cultural investigation of religious orientation, social norms, and prejudice. journal f or the Scientific Study of Religion, 26, 358-365. Nelson, P. B. (1989). Ethnic differences in in trinsic/extrinsic religious orientation and depres sion in the elderly. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing , 3, 199-204 .

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M . (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. journal of Per sonality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443. Altus, W. D . (1948). The validity of an abbrevi ated information test used in the army. journal of Consulting Psychology, J2, 270-275.

Appendix Age Universal I-E Scale The following items are included in the Age Universal Religious Orientation Scale. Items were administered in the (random) order listed and were all scored (except the sixth item) on the same 5-point Likert continuum: 1 = I strongly disagree 2 = 1 tend to disagree 3 = I' m not sure

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 . 16. 17. IS. 19. 20.

4 = I tend to agree

5 = strongly agree

(I) 1 enjoy reading about my religion. (E) 1 go to church because it helps me to make friends. (E) It doesn't much matter what 1 believe so long as I am good. (E) Sometimes 1 have to ignore my religious beliefs because of what people might think of me. (I) It is important to me to spend time in private thought and prayer. (I) I would prefer to go to church: (1) a few times a year or less (2) once every month or two (3 ) two or three times a month (4) about once a week (5) more than once a week (I) I have often had a strong sense of God's presence. (E) I pray mainly to gain relief and protection. (I) 1 try to live all my life according to my religious beliefs. (E) What religion offers me most is comfort in times of trouble and sorrow. (I) My religion is important because it answers many question about the meaning of life. (I) 1 would rather join a Bible study group than a church social group. (E) Prayer is for peace and happiness. (E) Although 1 am religious, 1 don't let it affect my daily life . (E) I go to church mostly to spend time with my friends. (I) My whole approach to life is based on my religion. (E) I go to church mainly because I enjoy seeing people I know there. (E) I pray mainly because I have been taught to pray. (I) Prayers 1 say when I'm alone are as important to me as those 1 say in church. (E) Although 1 believe in my religion, many other things are more important in life.

Gorsuch, R. L. , & Venable, G. D. (1983). Development of an "Age Universal" I-E scale. journal fo r the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 181- 187. Coyright © 1983 Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Reprinted with permission.

124

M EASU RES OF RELIGIOSITY

3.2

CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS INTERNALIZATION SCALE

(Ryan, Rigby, & King, 1993)

Reviewed by Laura Hinebaugh-Igoe

Variable: The Christian Religious Internal ization Scale (CRIS) assesses the degree of internalization for Christian beliefs and practices based on self-determination the ory. Internalization refers to the process through which an individual transforms an externally presc ribed regulation or value into an internal one. In other words, in inter nalization one "takes on" the value or regu lation as one' s own. Theories of internaliza tion acknowledge that there can be varied degrees of internalization. Ryan et al. (1993) identify introjection and identifica tion as two types of religious internaliza tion. Introjection represents a form of internal ization in which beliefs and practices are maintained through contingent self-ap proval, guilt, and esteem-related activities. Thus, introjected behaviors are performed because one "should" do them or because not doing so may result in anxiety, guilt, or loss of esteem. Identification, on the other hand , represents a more fully internalized regulation in that the individual experiences behavior as volitional or self-determined. Beliefs and practices associated with idenJj fication are experienced as a personal~ .. a!"",,;: and the individual perceives them as ema nating from himself or herself to a greater extent than in introjection. Given the nature of the distinction between the two types of internalization, Ryan et al. (1993) expect di vergent and largely opposing relations to adjustment and mental health, with identifi cation associated with more positive ou t comes and introjection with more negative outcomes. T us, the intent of the eRrS is twofold: (a) to assess an individual's type of religious orientation and (b) to examine how variations in introjection and identification are associated with well-being, mental health, and other established measures of re ligious orientation.

Description : The CRIS is a 12-item mea sure designed to identify an indiv idual' s styIe of religious orientation. Preliminary versions of the CRIS included a 36-item pool that was administered to two large samples of Christian subjects for the pur pose of factor and internal consistency analysis. These preliminary studies indi cated a reliable two-factor structure and the possibility of creating a brief version con sisting of the 12 items constituting the CRIS. Factor analysis with varimax rotation of the CRIS consistently yielded two factors corresponding to the two types of internal ization identified as introjection (eigenvalue = 3.00, 3.49, 3.50 across three samples of Christian subjects) and identification (eigenvalue = 2.20, 2.47, 2.80 across the three samples) . In scoring the CRIS, each item receives a score of 1-4 and subjects are directed to cir cle the response that best describes them selves. To distinguish religious orientation from general motivation, respondents indi cate the degree to which various motives would be salient to them if they were to per form a religious behavior. No items are neg atively wor ed and two subscaI scores are created for each sub ' ect representing the mea of the six items oading on each fac or. No significant correlation was found be tween the introjection and identification subscales (r = .07) . Likewise, gender differ ences in subscale scores were examined and no significant differences on either subscale were detected. Practical Considerations: This paper-and pencil measure requires no sp~l skills to administer, score, or interpret.'iNo instruc tions are provided, and none are necessary beyond the usual guarantee of confidential ity and the emphasis on no "right" or "wrong" answer~Face validity of the CRIS is high in that items clearly reflect one ori entation or the other.


Norms/Standardization : The CRIS was sampled against four groups of Christian subjects. As indicated by Ryan et al. (1993), Christian (i.e., Catholic and varied Protes tant) denominations were used because (a) they were readily available, (b) they have been the focus of past research on religious orientation with which comparisons can be drawn, and (c) pilot survey and interview studies suggested that both introjection and identification are common forms of motiva tion underlying Chri stian practices. As the title Christian Religious Internalization Scale suggests, generalizability remains limited to Christians until efforts are made to investigate how the CRIS functions among non-Christian religions. The first sample consisted of 105 under graduates (3 1 men and 74 women) at a sec ular university who identified themselves as Christian. The mean age of these partici pants was 20.5. The second sample con sisted of 151 undergraduates (47 men and 104 women) from a Protestant college (n = 84) and a Catholic university (n = 67). The mean age of these participants was 22.5. The third sample consisted of 41 subjects drawn from an adult Sunday school class at a suburban Protestant church. The mean age of these adults was 35. The fourth sample consisted of 333 male (149) and female (184) participants in a summer evangelical project in New York City. Their mean age was 17.5. Denominationally, 47% classified themselves as Baptists, 27% claimed non denominational status, and the remainder reported other denominational affiliation. Both evangelical (sample 4) and less behav iorally engaged Chris tian subjects from a ecular setting (sample 1) were utilized for comparis on purposes in testing for differ ences in introjection and identification. Sub jects in all four samples participated on a volunteer basis and were assured of the con fidentiality of their responses. R eliability: With the first sample of self identified Christian students from a secular university, factor analysis yielded two fac tors , reprtsenting introjection and identifi cation, and accounted for 23. 3% and 29.1 %

125

of the explained variance, respectively. Loadings (representing the correlation be tween each item and the factor extracted) ranged from .73 to .52 for introjection and from .84 to .57 for identification. Internal consistency reliability estimates found that in this sample both subs cales had alpha co efficients of .82, indicating adequate inter nal reliability. Factor analysis results from the second sample were similar to those obtained in the first sample, with six items falling on each of the two factors representing introjection and identification. Introjection accounted for 20.5% of the explained variance and loadings ranged from .72 to .61. Identifica tion accounted for 29.1 of the variance with loadings ranging from .84 to .57. Alpha co efficients were .82 and .69, respectively. Insufficient sample size prevented factor analysis from being performed on the third sample of Protestant adults. However, in dices of internal consistency for introjection and identification suggest adequate reliabil ity (ex = .64 and .79, respectively).

Validity: Hypothesized group differences and correlations were used to as sess the construct validity of the CRIS. In a case of "known groups" validity, Ryan et al. (1993) predicted and analyses supported a signifi cant difference in religious internalization hetween subjects who had volunteered to cliga ~e in evangelical work and less behav iorally involved subjects at a secular univer sity. More specifically, analyses of variance revealed that evangelical youths scored higher on both the introj ection and identifi cation subscales of the CRIS than the com parable sample drawn from a secular envi ronment (p < .001). Total score means on introjection were 1 .13 (SD = 3.56) and 13.88 (SD = 2.88) for secul college Chris tians and their-matches from the evangelical sample, espectively. Corresponding means for identifi cation were 7.88 (SD = 3.96) and 22.42 (SD = 1.81). 1n demonstrating the ability of the CRIS to discriminate between groups where one mig t logically predict differences in degree of religious internal

12 6


ization, these results assist in establishing construct validity. Convergent and discriminant construct va lidity were supported in a series of predicted correlations between the CRIS and other measures of religious internalization. Corre lational studies in three Christian samples provide evidence that identification is closely associated with Allport and Ross's (1967) di mension of intrinsic religiosity (correlations ranged from .33 to .77) and with what Batson and Ventis (1982) called the Religion as an End orientation (correlations ranged from .22 to .78). Moderate correlations between intro jection and extrinsic religiosity and Religion as a Means orientation (correlations ranged from .10 to .31 and .17 to AO, respectively) suggest that the introjection sub scale of the CRIS measures something more specific than either of these constructs. Batson and Ven tis's Religious as a Quest orientation was un related to either type of internalization. Both identifi cation and introjection were generally

associated with greater church attendance and the Doctrinal Orthodoxy Scale (B atson, 1976), though this was particularly true of identification.

Location : Ryan, R. M., Rigby, S., & King, K. (1993) . Two types of religious internalization and their relations to religious orientations and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65 (3), 586- 596.

Subsequent Research: No subsequent re searchy using the scale has been published. References Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967) . Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Per sonality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443. Batson, C. D. (1 976). Religion as prosocial: Agent or double agent? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15, 29-46. Batson, C. D., & Ventis, W. L. (1982). The reli gious experience: A social-psychological perspec tive . New York: Oxford University Press .

Appendix Christian Religious Internalization Scale The following items are included in the Christian Religious Internalization Scale. All items are scored on the same 4-point Likert continuum: 1 = not at all true

2 = usually not true

3 = usually true

4 = very true

One reason 1 actively sha re my faith with others is: 1. (Identified) Because God is important to me and I'd like other people to know about Him too. 2. (Introj ected) Because I would feel bad about myself if I didn't. (Introjected) Because I want other Christians to approve of me. 3. When 1 turn to God, 1 most ofte n do it because: 4. (Identified) I enjoy spending time with Him. S. (Introjected) I would feel guilty if I didn't. 6. (Identified) I find it satisfying to me. A reason 1 pray by myself is: 7. (Introjected) Because if I don' t, God will disapprove of me. 8. (Identified) Because I enjoy praying. 9. (Identified) Because I find prayer satisfying.

Scales o f Religio u s O rientation

12 7

A reason I attend church is: 10. (Introjected) Because one is supposed to go to church. 11. (Identified) By going to church, I learn new things. 12. (Introj ected) Because others would disapprove of me if I didn ' t. Note: A longer version of the scale is available from Richard Ryan, Dept. of Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0001. Reprinted with permission of the author.

3.3

COMMITTED-CONSENSUAL MEASURES (Allen & Spilka, 1967)

Reviewed by Rodney L. Bassett

Variable : The Committed-Consensual Mea sures are scales designed to tap different ways of being religious across a wide range of religious traditions. The scales emphasize the cognitive structuring of reli gious beliefs rather than the content of specific religious beliefs. References are made to religion, God, church, and the bible; but there are no specific references to Jesus Christ or other issues that might be divisive acro ss the broad Judeo-Christian tradition. Originally, Allen and Spilka (1 967) de signed the instrument to help clarify the re lationship between religiousness and prej u dice. The goal was to identify two ways of cognitivel y structuring religious beliefs that would relate in different ways to racial prej udice. Conceptually, consensual religion was conceived of as more dogmati c and thus related to higher prej udice; committed religion was conceived of as less dogmatic and thus related to lower prejudice. In addi tion, it was hoped these types of religious ness would not be confounded with pathol ogy or religious intensity. Description : The measurement of commit ted and consensual religion has undergone a series of transformations. The original ver sion of the instrument (Allen & Spilka, 1967) had an interview format. Later ver sions (Spilka, Read, Allen, & Dailey, 1968; Spilka & Mullin, 1977) were redesigned into a questionnaire format to facilitate ad ministration. The interview version of committed and consensual religion taps five cognitive com-

ponents of religious belief: content, clarity, complexity, fl exibility, and importance. Committed religion is anchored in abstract principles th at: (a) have exact meanings, (b) involve a large number of categories or ele ments , (c) are open for frank and thoughtful examination, and (d) are of central impor tance for the individual. Consensual religion is based upon beliefs that are concrete and: (a) have vague implications, (b) have few categories or elements, (c) are closed to dif fering opinions, and (d) have limited impact on the overall life of the individual. These elemen ts of religious belief are elicited through a series of questions in an interview that typically lasts one half hour to an hour. Allen and Spilka (1967) did not present the actual questions used in the in terview. How ever, Raschke (1973) described the process as a " . .. semistructured interview using questions centering around typical belief content areas such as God, prayer, Bible, church, faith, etc." (p. 339). The questionnaire version of committed and consensual religion utilizes a Likert-like format. There are 15 committed and 13 con sensual items. Several of these items over lap with the Allport and Ross (1967) Reli gious Orientation Scale. The literature generally suggest that the distinction be tween consensual and committed religion, like that of extrinsic and intrinsic religion, taps the di stinction between 'used' vs. ' lived ' faith (Spilka, 1976). However, as will be discussed in more detail later, the overlap between intrinsic and committed re

128


ligion seems to be greater than the overlap between extrinsic and consensual religion.

Practical Considerations: Several problems make the consensual and committed mea sures difficult to use. First, in theory, consensual and commit ted religion represent the endpoints of a bipolar dimension. Yet, the two measures consistently show a moderate but positive correlation (Spilka, 1977). Second, although committed and intrinsic religion seem to overlap, the relationship between consen sual and extrinsic religion has always been modest (Spilka, 1977). This suggests that there are at least two fairly independent ver sions of utilitarian religion and these differ ences have never been clarified. In recent years, measures of intrinsic/extrinsic faith have tended to supplant measures of com mitted/consensual faith. As a result, the unique aspects of consensual faith may have been lost in the literature. It becomes apparent that many of the consensual items measure the importance of religious worship. Concern for rituals of worship could derive from a 'cultural' faith or a 'personal' faith. Religious people could recognize the significance of rituals of wor ship because they were raised with these rit uals (cultural) or because these rituals pro vide an avenue of communication and worship with a personal God (personal). The second possibility might partially ex plain the positive relationship between con sensual and intrinsic faith (Spilka, Minton, Sizemore, & Stout, 1977). Such differing motivations for worship might cloud the meaning of the consensual scale. Norms/Standardization: The Committed Consensual Measures have been used with a wide range of participants. However, there is no manual for the instrument, and norms for the instrument have not been published. Reliability: In the original article by Allen and Spilka, reliability for scoring the results of the interview were reported. Scorers were given a four-hour training session and then their ability to assess participant responses in terms of the five elements of consensual

and committed religion was assessed. Relia bility among st the scorers seemed to be quite high . Using an analysis of vari ance technique, the coeffic ient of reliability across the five elements was .93. With the questionnaire version of consen sual and committed, Spilka et al. (1977) re ported the Kuder-Richardson 20 estimates of reliability. For committed religion, the estimate was .93. For consensual religion, the estimate was .84.

Validity: Spilka (1 977) looked at the rela tionship between utilitarianism and consen sual and committed faith. Ninety Christian college students were given several ques tionnaires measuring acceptance or rejec tion of materialism and self-aggrandize ment. Committed religion was inversely related to materialism and success achieve ment. Consensual religion was directly re lated to status concern and success achieve ment. Similar relationships were found with the Allport and Ross (1967) and the Hoge (1972) intrinsic and extrinsic measures. Location: Allen, R. 0., & Spilka, B. (1967). Committed and consensual religion: A specification of religion prejudice relationships. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 6, 191-206. Spilka, B., Minton, B., Sizemore, D., & Stout, L. (1977). Death and personal faith: A psychomet ric investigation. Jo urnal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16,1 69-178.

Subsequent Research: Little research work has been done with the consensual-commit ted measures. Instead, the scientific study of religion has utilized the related intrinsic-ex trinsic constructs to a far greater degree. References: Allport, G. W , & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Per sonality and Social Psychology, 5,432-433. Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic reli gious motivation scale. Journal f or the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 369- 376. Raschke, V. (1973). Dogmatism and committed and consensual religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 12, 339-344. Spilka, B. (1976). The complete person: Some

Scales of Religious Orien ta tion theoretical views and research findings for a theo logical-psychology of religion. Journal of Psychol ogy and Theology, 4,15-24. Spilka, B. (1977). Utilitarianism and personal faith . Journa l of Psychology and Theology, 5, 226- 223. Spilka, B., & Mullin, M. (1977). Personal reli gion and psychosocial schemata: A research ap-

12 9

proach to a theological psychology of religion.

Character Potential, 8, 57- 66.

Spilka, B., Read, S., Allen, R. 0 ., & Dailey, K.

A. (1968 December). Specificity vs. generality: The criterion problem in religious measurement. Paper presented at the annual meetirig for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dal las, TX.

Appendix Commited-Consensual Measures Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree to each statemen below by using the follow ing scale. 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Moderatley Disagree 3 = Slightly Disagree

4

= Slightly Agree

5 = Moderatley Agree 6 = Strongly Agree

1. One of the most important aspects of religion is the religious ceremonies. (Cn)

2. I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life. (Cm) 3. My ideas about religion are one of the most important parts of my philosophy of life. (Cm) 4. Religion is most real to me during my attendance at public church or religious services. (Cn) 5. I do not think that the sequences of prayers, songs , etc., is very important in religious services. (Cn) 6. Quite often I have been keenly aware of the presence of God or the Divine Being. (Cm) 7. Every person needs to have the feeling of security given by a church. (Cn) 8. Tender concern for others is a means of finding joy in one's religion. (Cm) 9. The more a religious service is ritualized the more it has meaning for me. (Cn) 10. The purpose of prayer is to secure a happy and peaceful life. (Cn) 11. The truly religious person believes honestly and wholeheartedly in the doctrines of his church. (Cn) 12. My interest in and real commitment to religion is greater now than when I first joined the church. (Cm) 13. Religion is a subject in which I am not particularly interested. (Cm - reverse scored) 14. It is important to me to spend periods of time in private thought and meditation. (Cm) 15. The ritual of worship is a very important part of religion. (Cn) 16. My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life. (Cm) 17. I like to think that people all over are going through nearly the same ritual in their reli gious worship. (Cn) 18. I think that the placement and treatment of the various articles of worship is very impor tant in a worship service. (Cn)

MEASURES OF RELIG IOSIT Y

130

19. I often think about matters relating to religion. (em) 20. Believing as I do about religion is very important to being the kind of person I want to be. (Cm) 21. The precision and orderliness with which religious ceremonies are performed is impor tant. (Cn). 22. Religion is especially important to me because it answers many questions about the meaning of life. (Cm) 23 . It is important to me that religious services be standardized. (Cn) 24. If my ideas about religion were different, I believe that my way of life would be very different. (Cm) 25 . The aim of missionaries should be to establish church buildings where religious services and ceremonies can be conducted. (Cn) 26. I read literature about my faith or church. (Cm) (a) yes (b) no 27. If I were joining a church group, I would prefer to join (1 ) a Bible study group or (2) a social fellowship. (Cm) a. I would prefer to join (1) b. I probably would prefer to join (1) c. I probably would prefer to join (2) d. I would prefer to join (2) 28. How much time during the week would you say you spend reading the Bible and other religious literature? (Cm) a. one hour or more b. one-half hour c. none Cm- item measures Committed form of personal religion Cn-item measures Consensual form of personal religion Spilka, B., Minton, B., Sizemore, D., & Sto ut, L. (1977). Death and personal faith: A psychometric in vestigation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 169-178. Copyright © 1977 Journal for the Sci entific Study of Religion. Reprinted with permission.

3.4 DUKE RELIGION INDEX (Koenig, Patterson, & Meador, 1997) Reviewed by Peter C. Hill Duke Religion Index respectively. The last three items were ex (DUREL) measures three major dimensions tracted from Hoge's (1 972) intrinsic reli of religiousness: organizational (OR) , giosity scale (items 2, 6, and 7). From a nonorganizational (NOR), and intrinsic reli study of 458 medical patients in the Duke giosity (IR). The authors developed this Hospital Study, these three items were cho scale as an attempt "to measure religosity in sen based on their intrinsic factor loading (3 a comprehensive yet brief and non-offensive of Hoge's 5 items that loaded .72 or manner" (p. 885). greater), correlation with the total score of the Hoge ten-item scale (3 of Hoge' s 6 Description : The first and second items of this five-item scale measure OR and NOR items that correlated .65 or greater) , and re

Variable : The

"'-------'-=-_.- - - -

Scales o f Religious O rien tation

lationship with several health outcomes, in cluding social support, functional impair ment, severity of medical illness, self-re lated depression, major depression, and speed of recovery from depression. The five items are summed, resulting in a score range of 5 (high religiousness) to 27 (low reli giousness) .

Practical Considerations: This brief scale requires no spec ial considerations and should take only a few minutes to complete.

Norms/Standardization : Though no norma tive data on the first two items are presented in Koenig, Patterson, and Meador ( 1997), the authors report that normative data on reponse rates in both clinical and community populations are available. These two items were adminstered to over 7 ,000 persons aged 18 to 90 participating in three separate studies. Descriptive statistics (e.g., means, standard deviations, etc.) were also not re ported for the final three items. Again, how ever, such normative data is provided through the Duke Hospital Study.

Reliability: No reliability data are presented on the rust two items. The three-item intrinic religiosity subscale had a Cronbach 's alpha of .75.

'Validity: The 3-item intrinsic religiosity -ubscale strongly correlated (r = .85) with Hoge's full lO-item scale and only moder ately correlated with OR (r = .40) and NOR

131

(r = .42). Though the correlation between

OR and NOR was not reported, correlations with physical and mental health measures suggest that these two measures of religious behavior are distinct (see also Koenig, 1997; Koenig, Hays, George, & Blazer, 1997). For example, OR is related to more social support, less depression (both self rated and major depression), less severity of medical illness, and less functional impair ment. NOR is related to more social support only, though the authors cite recent research (Koenig et aI., 1997) suggesting that NOR is related to poorer physical health and has a mixed association with depression. The au thors' claim that this brief instrument mea sures "three major dimensions of religious ness that are related in overlapping yet unique ways to social support and different health outcomes" (p. 885) appears to be valid.

Location : Koenig, H. G., Parkerson , G. R., & Meador, K. G. (1997). Religion index for psychiatric research: A 5-item measure for use in health outcome stud

ies. American Jo urnal of Psychiatry, 154(6), 885.

Recent Research: Koenig, H. G. (1997). Is religion good for your health? New York: Haworth Press. Koenig, H. G. , Hays, J. C., George, L. K. , & Blaxer, D. G. (1 997). Modeling the cross-sectional relationships between reli gion, physical health, so cial support, and depressive symptoms. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 5, 131- 143.

Appendix Duke University Religion Index (DUREL) L How often do you attend church or other religious meetings? (OR) 1. More than once a week 2. Once a week 3. A few times a month 4. A few times a year 5. Once a year or less 6. Never

)

132


2. How often do you spend time in private religious activities, such as prayer, meditation, or Bible study? (NOR) 1. More than once a day 2. Daily 3. Two or more times/week 4. Once a week 5. A few times a month 6. Rarely or never

The follow ing section contains 3 statements about religious belief or experience. Please mark the extent to which each statement is true or not true fo r you. 3. In my life, I experience the presence of the Divine (i.e., God). (IR) 1. Definitely true of me 2. Tends to be true 3. Unsure 4. Tends not to be true 5. Definitely not true 4. My religious beliefs are what really lies behind my whole approach to life. (IR) 1. Definitely true of me 2. Tends to be true 3. Unsure 4. Tends not to be true 5. Definitely not true 5. I try hard to carry my religion over into all other dealings in life. (lR) 1. Definitely true of me 2. Tends to be true 3. Unsure 4. Tends not to be true 5. Definitely not true OR-organizational religiosity NOR-Non-organizational religiosity IR-intrinsic religiosity American Journa l of Psychiatry, 154, 885, 1997 . Copyright © 1997, the American Psychiatric Associa tion. Reprinted by permission.

3.5 INDISCRIMINATE PRORELIGIOUSNESS SCALE (Pargament et at , 1987) Reviewed by Peter C. Hill

Variable: The Indiscriminate Proreligious ness Scale (IPRO) measures the tendency to be both intrinsically and extrinsically re ligious on personal and congregational lev els. Pargament developed this scale after examining the way Allport criticized the logic of the indiscriminately proreligious

individual who scored high on both the ex trinsic and intrinsic subscales of the Reli gious Orientati on Scale (Allport & Ross. 1967 ). P argament suggests that intrinsic and extrinsic orientations are not nece sar ily logically inconsistent. Individuals who score high on both scales may, according to

Scales of Religious Orien tation

Pargament, both "live" and "use" their reli gion. Pargament and his colleagues opera tionally define indiscriminate proreligious ness as a tendency to respond positively to religious material regardless of its plausibil ity. For example, a person who consistently responds positively to such statements as "Members always know about all church acti vities" and "I always live by my reli gious beliefs" would be considered indis criminately proreligious by this scale.

Description: The IPRO contains two sub scales: congregational (PRO-C) and per sonal (PRO-P) proreligiousness. The PRO C items focus on areas of church life, such as leadership, membership, services, activi ties, education, clergy, and policies. The PRO-P items deal with the devotional, con sequential, ritual, and ideological facets of an individual's personal religious life. Both the congregational and personal subscales use a true-false format to force the respondent to choose between an indiscrim inate proreligious position and a more dis criminating position. Each item clearly al lows for a choice of a proreligious position, and, in each case, this position is not plausi ble. The PRO-C scale contains 16 items, 8 of which are reverse scored. The PRO-P scale has 12 items, with 5 reverse scored. Practical Considerations: As with other measures of religious orientation, the Indis criminate Proreli gious Scale requires no special skills to administer or score. For all items, the proreligious response (some items are reverse scored) is scored 1 and the nonproreligious response is scored O. The total score is simply the number of items an swered with a proreligious response. If a proreligious orientation is used as a categorical independent variable, it is rec ommended that theoretical mi dpoints of the scales (8 for PRO-C, 6 for PRO-P) be used rather than median splits, thereby avoiding inconsistent classification across studies due to sampling differences. Norms/Standardization: One sample total ing 261 subjects was selected from three

133

Michigan churches: two Lutheran (total N = 155) and one Presbyterian (N = 106). Forty one percent of the sample was male and the median age was 43. A second sample was drawn from church-going student volunteers from a moderate-sized midwestern univer sity. This sample of 305 subjects contained 27% males with a median age of 19 and consisted of 53% Roman Catholic, 43% Protestant, and 4% Other. Means (and standard deviations) for the church sample were 4.51 (3.19) on the PRO-C me asure and 4.01 (2. 68) on the PRO-P measure. For the student sample, the respective means (and standard deviations) for PRO-C and PRO-P were 6.08 (3.75) and 4.23 (2.16). Reliability: For the church sample, Cron bach's alpha reliability estimates of .75 for the PRO-P scale and .78 for the PRO-C scale were found. Reliability estimates with the student sample were .59 and .82 for the PRO-P and PRO-C scales respectively. The rather low PRO-P reliability estimate in the student sample was thought to be due to the low rate of endorsement of a number of items (a dichotomous item may be limited in its correlation with another variable as its proportion of endorsement increasingly dif fers from 50%) among the students or to a lower level of religious commitment and in tegration (and, hence, possibly less reliable responses) . In fact, the student sample scored significantly lower than the church sample on Hoge's (1972) Intrinsic scale.

Validity: The content validity of the scale was determined by a fac tor analysis, using a promax rotation. All items have factor load ings of at least .20 and, with the exception of two PRO-C items, do not load on the other factor. An agreement response set is largely eliminated by the presence of nega tively worded items. Construct validity was measured in a number of ways. First, PRO-C and PRO-P correlate only moderately with the Crowne Marlowe (1964) measure of social desirabil ity (.52 with PRO-P and .29 with PRO-C in the church sample; .49 with PRO-P and .31 with PRO-C in the student sample). Second,

134

MEASURE S OF R E LIGIO SIT Y

PRO-P with PRO-C correlate only moder ately with each other (.40 for the church sample and of .44 for the student sample), suggesting that the two subscales assess re lated but distinct domains of indiscriminate proreligiousness. Third, the median correla tions with measures of congregational cli mate and satisfaction across both church and student samples were higher with PRO C (.43 ) than with PRO-P (.22) and Crowne Marlowe (.14). Fourth, the median correla tions with several religious variables (e.g., intrinsic, extrinsic, quest, God-control, or thodoxy, church attendance, fre quency of prayer, and religious salience) were higher with PRO-P (.30) than with PRO-C (.10) and Crowne-Marlowe (.09). The between sample (church and students) consistency in support of these hypotheses not only sug gests high construct validity but also demonstrates evidence of generalizability. Fifth, a modest relationship was found be tween PRO-P and indiscriminate proreli giousness as defined through the Allport and Ross 2X2 typology on the Intrinsic-Extrin sic Religious Orientation Scale.

Location : Pargament, K 1., Brannick, M. T., Adamakos, H., Ensing, D . S., Kelemen , M. L. , Warren, R. K., Falgout, K, Cook, P., & Myers, J. (1987). Ind is

criminate proreligiousness: Conceptualization and measurement. l ournal fo r the Scientific Study of Religion , 26, 182-200.

Subsequent Research : Hathaway, W. L., & Pargament, K. 1. (1 990). In trinsic religiousness, religious coping, and psy chosocial competence: A covariance stru cture analysis . lournal for the Scientific Study of Reli gion, 29(4), 423-441. Pargament, K. 1., Ensing, D. S., Falgout, K., Olsen, H., Reilly, B., Van Haitsma, K. , & Warren, R. (1990). God help me (I) : Religious coping ef forts as predictors of the outcomes to significant life events. American Journal of Community Psy chology, 18(6), 793-824. Pargament, K L, Olsen, H., Reilly, B., Falgout, K , Ensi ng, D. S., & Van Haitsma, K (1992). God help me (II): The relationship of religious orienta tions to religious coping with negative life events. Jo urnal f or the Scientific Study of Religion, 31(4), 504-513.

References Allport, G. w., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. lou rnal of Per sonality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D . (1964). The ap prova l motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley. Hoge, D. R . (1972) . A validated intrinsic reli gious motivation scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11 , 369-376.

Appendix Indiscriminate Proreligiousness Scale Please answer "true" or "false" to each of the following items. Congregational Form (PRO-C) I. Tensions do not exist among members of this church. 2. Differences of opinion are always welcome in this church. 3. Members of the church share all of their joys and sorrows with each other. 4. Some members complain about aspects of the church. (R) 5. Church members never gossip about one another. 6. Sometimes there is a problem about getting vol unteers for activities in this church. (R) 7. Sometimes church leaders don't know members' opinions on important issues. (R) 8. Church leaders are sometimes insensitive to members' needs. (R) 9. Some church activities are boring. (R) 10. Members always know about all church activities. II . It is sometimes hard for members to get invol ved in church activities. (R)


12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

135

This church has programs to meet the needs of all the members. There are no cliques in this church. The ministers are sometimes unable to help solve members' problems. (R) The members know all the church policies and rules. Our ministers do not give their full attention to some of the members. (R)

Personal Form (PRO-P) 1. Religious services always give me new insight into my religious beliefs. 2. I am always inspired by the sermon topics. 3. Sometimes I daydream during services. (R) 4. I always try to use the message of the weekly sermon in my daily life. 5. There have been times when I doubted the existence of God. (R) 6. I always live by my religious beliefs . 7. My religious beliefs guide me in everyone of my daily actions. 8. There are times when I do not feel like going to church. (R) 9. Praying always brings me inner peace. 10. Sometimes I feel that the teachings of my religion ask too much of me. (R) 11. I never disobey the teachings of my faith. 12. When things are going well for me, I sometimes forget to thank God. (R) (R) indicates that the item is reverse scored. Pargament, K I., Brannick, M. T. , Adamakos, H., Ensing, D. S., Kelemen, M. L., Warren, R. K, Falgout, K, Cook, P., & Myers, J. (1987). Indiscriminate proreligiousness: Conceptualization and measurement. Journa l for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26, 182-200. Copyright © 1987 Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Reprinted with permission.

3.6

INTRINSIC RELIGIOUS MOTIVATION SCALE (Hoge, 1972)

Reviewed by Rodney L. Bassett

Variable: The Intrinsic Religious Motiva tion Scale measures different ways of being religious . Although it was developed and tested within the Christian tradition, the items are applicable to a wide range of reli gious groups . Only two of the ten items comprising the instrument make a specific reference to God, and no items refer specifi cally to Christianity. In addition, the instru ment clearly avoids the potentially divisive issues of religious behaviors and beliefs. In stead, this scale measures the motivation be hind religious activity. It was Hoge's (1972) hope that by limiting the instrument to the measurement of only one aspect of reli giousness the instrument would produce a unidimensional scale. Hoge believed that such a scale would add conceptual clarity to the relationships between religiousness and

other factors of interest to social scientists (e.g., prejudice).

Description : The Intrinsic Religious Moti vation Scale contains ten items in a Likert like format. These items are designed to tap the dimension Hunt and King (197 1) called "ultimate versus instrumental." Conceptu ally, this dimension is derived from the mo tivational aspect of Allport and Ross's (1 967) Religious Orientation Scale. Unlike similar instruments (e.g., Feagin, 1964), the final items for the Hoge instrument were se lected because they loaded on a single fac tor. On one end of the dimension are seven intrinsic items, and on the other end are three extrinsic items. Obviously, Hoge as sumed that intrinsic and extrinsic faith an chor different ends of the same dimension instead of assuming that intrinsic and ex

-

136

------

MEA S URES OF R ELIGIOSIT Y

trinsic faith might represent two separate di mensions. It should be noted that some of the items on Roge's scale were taken from the Allport and Ross scale and the Feagin scale. Respondents have four response op tions to the scale items ranging from "strongly agree" (1 ) to "strongly disagree" (4). In the computation of the overall score, the extrinsic items are reversed. Thus , a low overall score indicates intrinsicness and a high score indicates extrinsicness.

Practical Considerations: The most useful source for someone using the scale is the original article by Roge (1 972). This article presents the actual items and makes a few suggestions for administering and scoring the instrument. The inclusion of intrinsic and extrinsic items may provide some pro tection against response bias. Several strategies for scoring the scale appear in the literature. The strategy advo cated by Roge is to reverse score the extrin sic items, add the intrinsic and extrinsic items together, and then report an overall in trinsic score. An alternative strategy has been to separate the intrinsic and extrinsic items and report them as separate scale val ues (e.g., Spilka, 1977). A final variation in the literature (e.g., Sapp & Jones, 1986) is to use the Roge instrument as a measure of intrinsicness along with some other measure of extrinsicness . The instrument is straightforward and short, and it avoids sectarian language. It should be a particularly useful instrument for researchers that are concerned about par ticipant fatigue effects. Norms/Standardization : The original arti cle by Roge reported on two studies. In both studies, participants were nominated by local pastors because these parishioners fit a description of intrinsic or extrinsic religious orientation. R oge reported that for the sec ond study the average intrinsic item score was 2.00, and the average standard devia tion was 1.07. For the extrinsic items, the average score was 4. 11, and the average standard deviation was 1.08. When the scores for the extrinsic items were reversed and all the items were considered together,

the average item score was 1.97 and the av erage standard deviation was 1.08.

Reliability: Reversing the extrinsic items, R oge reported that the reliability of the scale was .90 using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20. The item-to-item correlations ranged from a low of .13 to a high of .72. Reliability information was also provided by Roge and Carroll (1978) from their sur vey of members of eight suburban Protes tant churches. In attempting to identify de terminants of commitment in suburban churches, Roge and Carroll administered a shortened version (six items) of the Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale. With the short ened version, Cronbach's alpha was .84. Validity: In the original report by Roge, par ticipants were nominated by ministers who identified them as being either intrinsic or extrinsic in their religious orientation. Only those items that correlated with the minis ters' judgments were included in the final form of the scale. The overall final version of the scale correlated .59 with these judg ments. In addition, the Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale was correlated with the Allport and Ross (1967 ) and the Feagin (1 964) intrinsic scales. The correlations with these scales all ranged from .71 to .87. Of course, these high positive correlations can be explained in part by the common items shared by the scales. Benson et al. (1 980) researched intraper sonal factors affecting nonspontaneous help ing. The participants were 69 female and 44 male students at a small midwestern liberal arts college. The data were collected through a series of questionnaires administered dur ing a single testing session. Nonspontaneous helping involved self-reports of hours spent during the previous year in 14 different help ing categories. These categories included volunteer work, visitations, leadership in youth organizations, solicitation for chari ties, etc. One of the intrapersonal factors was intrinsic faith (as measured by Roge's scale). Providing construct validity for Roge's in strument, Benson et al. found that intrinsic ness was one of the best positive predictors of nonspontaneous helping.

~.=--


13 7

Location :

Benson, P. L. , Dehority, J ., Garman, L., Hanson, E. , Hochschwender, M ., Lebold, C., Rohr, R., & Sullivan, J. (1 980). Interpersonal correlates of non spontaneous helping behavior. j ournal of Social Psychology, 110, 87-95 . Subsequent Research : Feagin, J. R. (1964). Prejudice an d religious

Hathaway, W. L., & Pargament, K. 1. (1990). In

types: A focused study of southern fundamentalists. trins ic religiousness, religious coping, and psy journal f or the Scientific Study of Religion, 4, chosocial competence: A covariance structure 3-13. analysis. j ournal f or the Scientific Study of Reli Hoge, D. R ., & Carroll, J. W. (1978). Determi gion, 29(4), 423-441. nants of commitment and participation in suburban Pargament, K. 1., Ensing, D. S., Falgout, K., Protestant churches. journalfor the Scientific Study Olsen, H., Reilly, B., Vanhaitsma, K., & Warren, R . of Religion, 17, 107-127 . (1990). God help me: 1. Religious coping efforts as Hunt, R. A., & King, M. (1971 ). The intrinsic predictors of the outcomes to significant negative extrinsic concept: A review and evaluation. journal life events. American journal of Community Psy fo r the Scientific Study of Religion, 10, 339- 356, chology, 18, 793- 824. Sapp, G. L., & Jones, L. (1986). Religious ori entation and moral judgment. journal for the Scien References: tific Study of Religion, 25, 208- 214. Spilka, B. (1977) . Utilitarianism and personal Allport, G. w., & Ross, J. M. (1 967) . Personal faith. journal of Psychology and Theology, 5, religious orientation and prejudice. journal of Per sonality and Social Psychology, 5, 447-457. 226-233.

Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic reli gious motivation scale. journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 369- 376.

APPENDIX Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale Please use the following scale to indicate your response to each statement listed below: 1 = strongly disagree 2 = moderately disagree

3 = moderately agree

4 = strongly agree

1. My faith involves all of my life. (Intrinsic) 2. One should seek God's guidance when making every important decision. (Intrinsic) 3. In my life I experience the presence of the Divine. (Intrinsic) 4. My faith sometimes restricts my actions. (Intrinsic) 5. Nothing is as important to me as serving God as best I know how. (Intrinsic) 6. I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life. (Intrinsic) 7. My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life. (Intrinsic) 8. It doesn' t matter so much what I believe as long as I lead a moral life. (Extrinsic) 9. Although I am a religious person, I refuse to let religious considerations influence my

everyday affairs. (Extrinsic)

10. Although I believe in my religion, I feel there are many more important things in life. (Extrinsic) Hoge, D. R. ( 1972). A validated intrinsic religious motivation scale . journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 369- 376. Copyright © 1972 Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Reprinted with per mission.

I

------

-

-

138

-

--


3.7 QUEST SCALE (Batson & Schoenrade, 1991a, b) Reviewed by Christopher T. Burris

Variable: Quest is a form of religious orien tation, a motivational construct distinct from the extrinsic and intrinsic orientations conceptualized and meas ured by Allport (Allport & Ross, 1967; see also this vol ume). Initially proposed, in part, as the "conceptual leftovers" of the "mature reli gious sentiment" (Allport, 1950) that were believed to be overlooked in Allport's oper ationalization of the Intrinsic Scale (Batson, 1976; Batson & Ventis, 1982), quest is char acterized as "the degree to which an indi vidual's religi on involves an open-ended, responsive dialogue with existential ques tions raised by the contradictions and tragedies of life" (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993, p. 169). Such dialogue appre ciates the complexity of the issues involved, ascribes a positive role to doubt, and main tains a correspondingly tentative, change able stance toward religious convictions (Batson et aI., 1993). Description: Although the conceptualization of quest has remained virtually unchanged over the course of Batson's writings related to it, numerous "Quest Scales" have ap peared since the construct was initially pro posed. A nine-item version used by Batson in the early seventies gave way to the six-item "Interactional" Scale (Batson, 1976), the ver sion with which most of the substantive re search related to the quest orientation has been conducted (see Batson & Ventis, 1982; Batson et aI. , 1993, for reviews). Prompted largely by criticisms regarding the low inter nal consistency associated with the 6-item scale, however, Batson and Schoenrade (1991b) constructed a 12-item Quest Scale. Reliability and other psychometric concerns also sparked three other independent scale revision/construction attempts: Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992); Kojetin, McIntosh, Bridges, & Spilka (1987); and McFarland (1 989). Only Batson and Schoenrade (1 991b) will be discussed here, however.

The 12-item Quest Scale is intended to assess three distinct but interrelated aspects of the quest orientation: (a) "readiness to face existential questions without reducing their complexity," (b) "self-criticism and perceptions of religious doubts as positive," and (c) "openness to change" (Batson & Schoenrade, 1991b, p. 431) . Each aspect is primarily assessed by four different items, although Batson and Schoenrade express reservations with respect to using these item clusters as subscales. Batson and colleagues typically employ a nine-point (1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly agree) response for mat; scores are reported as overall item means (range = 1-9) rather than as item to tals (see "Norms/Standardization"). In addition to Quest Scale scores, Quest component scores-along with Means and End component scores-are computed based on a principal-components analysis justified by Batson's (1976) three-dimen sional model of religious orientation (see "Practical Considerations"; see also Reli gious Orientation Scale, in this volume). Because the Quest component is defined al most exclusively by the Quest Scale (Batson & Schoenrade, 199 1b, reported loadings of .98 and .97 in their two samples), however, the two are virtually interchangeable.

Practical Considerations: Other than a ref erence to deity in one item, the Quest Scale's as sumptions and wording are quite nonsectarian, suggesting the scale's useful ness across a broad range of samplesC!he existential content and sense of time per spective present in many items may limit the scale's compre~sibi lity to older ado lescents and beyond,ftthough this reviewer is unaware of any data establishing a "lower limit" age range for the scale's use. Scoring of the scale itself is quite straightforward; deriving Quest component scores a la Bat son's three-dimensional model requ ires some degree of statistical sophistication,

Scales of Religious Orientation however (see Batson, 1976, and Batson et aI. , 1993, for overviews of this procedure).

Norms/Standardization : In their initial pre sentation of the 12-item Quest Scale, Batson and Schoenrade (1 99 1b) reported means of 5.04 and 4.95 for two groups (approxi mately 200 each) of Christian-background undergraduates at the University of Kansas who were at least moderately interested in religion. Burris, Jackson, Tarpley, and Smith (1996) demonstrated that Quest scores vary considerably as a function of self-identified religious preference (see "Validity"). There is also some evidence that quest is inversely related to age (from adolescence beyond), but the data are by no means unequivocal (see Batson & Schoenrade, 1991a). More over, all age-related data reported thus far are cross-sectional, not longitudinal, which cannot rule out possible cohort effects on the age-quest relationship. Reliability: As noted above, Batson and Schoenrade (1991b) developed the 12-item Quest Scale in part as a response to criticisms regarding the 6-item Interactional Scale's low reli ability, i.e., with the "true" Cron bach's alpha hovering "around .45 or .50" (p. 432) based on their review of several studies. The reliability of the 12-item Quest Scale, while not outstanding, is nevertheless much more adequate: Batson and Schoenrade re ported Cronbach's alphas of .75 and .81 in their two samples, approximating the .71 to .78 range reported by Burris et ai. (1996) across their four samples. Burris and Tarpley (in press) recently reported a two-week test retest reliability of .79 for the 12-item scale in a sample of 61 undergraduates, again fa vorably comparing to the .63 for the 6-item scale in an unpublished manuscript cited by Batson and Schoenrade. Validity : Assuming the relative interchange ability of the 6-item Interactional and the 12-item Quest scales (which seems justified given correlations ~ .85, Batson & Schoen rade, 1991b), support for the validity of the latter scale is fairly substantial. For exam ple, Batson has demo nstrated repeatedl y that the Quest Scale measures something

139

distinct from what the Extrinsic or the In trinsic scales measure (see Allport & Ross, 1967; see also thi s volume )-although whether the quest orientation should be re garded as independent with respect to either of these orientations is open to debate (see Burris, 1994). Moreover, Burris et al. (1996) demonstrated quest to be an articula tion of religion not reducible to agnosticism (Donahue, 198 5), liberalism (Paloutzian, 1983; Wulff, 1997), or simple anti-orthodox sentiment (Watson, Morris, & Hood, 1989). In two university samples, Burris et al. (1996) found that individuals who declared their religious preference to be "personal re ligion" averaged higher on the Quest Scale than did either agnostics, liberal Protestants, or atheists. Indeed, consi stent with Batson and colleagues' (1993 , p. 167) suggestion that the quest-oriented individual is commit ted to "hammering out his or her stance on religious questions, refusing to be domi nated by the religious institutions of soci ety," Burris et al. found quest to be related to a number of variables suggestive of an in dividuated stance toward social participa tion in general (e.g., reactance, social criti cism, need for uniqueness). Two l ines of evidence are consistent with Batson and colleagues' (1993, p. 166) asser tion that quest centrally involves "honestly facing existen tial questions, while at the same time resisting clear-cut, pat answers." First, Batson and Raynor-Prince (1983) found quest (as measured by the six-item Interactional Scale) to be uniquely posi tively correlated with cognitive complexity specific to the religious domain. Second, Burris et al. found Quest scores to increase following confrontation with an existential dilemma (viz., reading about an infant boy who became a victim of a drive-by shooting while his grandmother prayed for his pro tection). Burris et al. also fo und quest to be uniquely positively correlated with self-re ported family conflict in two undergraduate samples; moreover, cross-lag data suggested that family conflict was driving quest rather than vice-versa. Together, these two lines of evidence seem to offer quite consistent sup port for Batson's (1 976, p. 32) assertion that

----------- ------

MEASU R E S OF RELIGIOSITY

140

quest is typified by "an endless process of probing and questioning generated by the tensions, contradictions, and tragedies in their own lives and society." Curiously, given its origin in part as an at tempt to capture aspects of so-called "mature religion" that Allport (1950) conceptualized but failed to measure (see this volume), the quest orientation seems to have taken on a life of its own. Indeed, given that it is unique among the religious orientations in its ten dency to correlate negatively with a broad range of prejudice measures (Batson & Bur ris, 1994), and given that it also appears to correlate uniquely with victim-focused help ing motivation (see Batson et aI., 1993, chap. 10), quest would seem to offer the promise of many good things to the socially conscious psychologist of religion. Yet, as both critics (Hood & Morris, 1985) and defenders (Bat son & Ventis, 1985) of the quest construct note, such sacralization may ultimately prove unwise. Rather, a much more fruitful ap proach would be to attempt to develop a gen eral model of religious orientation that artic ul ates not only how quest relates to the extrinsic and intrinsic orientations but also why each orientation relates to signific ant psychological and social variables as it does (e.g., Burris, 1997). Such integrative expla nations seem all too rare.

Location : Batson, C . D., & Schoenrade, P. (1991 ). Mea suring rel igion as quest: 2. Reliability concerns. Jo urnal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 430-447 .

Subsequent Research : Batson, C. D ., Oleson, K. C., Weeks, J. L. , Healy, S. P., Reeves, P. J. , Jennings, P., & Brown, T. (1 989). Religious prosocial motivation : Is it altruis tic or egoistic? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 873-884. Burris, C. T., Jackson, L. M., Tarpley, W. R., & Smith, G. (1 996). Religion as quest: The self-di rected pursuit of meaning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1068-1076. McFarland, S. G., & Warren, J. c., Jr. (1992). Religious orientation and selective exposure among fundamentalist Christians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31, 163-174.

--~.-,;.--

--

References Allport, G. W. ( 1950). The individual and his re lig ion. New York: MacMillan. Allport, G. W. , & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Per sonality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443 . Altemeyer, B. & Hunsberger, B. (1 992). Author itarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejUdice. International Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2, 113-133. Batson, C. D. (1976) . Religion as prosocial : Agent or double-agent? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, i5 , 29-45 . Batson, C. D., & Burris, C. T. (1994) . Personal religion: Depressant or stimulant of prejudice and discrimination? In M . P. Zanna & J . M. Olson (Eds.), The seventh Ontario symposium on person ality and social psychology: The psychology of prejudice (pp. 149-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum. Batson, C. D., & Raynor-Prince, L. (1983). Re ligious orientation and complexity of thought about existential concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 38- 50. Batson, C. D. , & Ventis, W. L. (1982). The reli gious experience: A social-psychological perspec tive. New York: Oxford University Press. Batson, C. D., & Ventis, W. L. (1985). Miscon ception of quest: A reply to Hood and Morris. Re view of Religious Research, 26, 398-407. • Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. (1 99Ia). Mea suring religion as quest: I. Validity concerns . Jour nalfor the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 4 16-429. ~ Batson , C. D., & Schoenrade, P. (199Ib). Mea suring religion as ques t: 2. Reliability concerns. Jou rnal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 430-447. Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psy chological perspective. New York: Oxford Univer sity Press. Burris, C. T. (1994). Curvilinearity and religious types: A second look at intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest relations. international Journal for the Psy chology of Religion , 4, 245-260. Burris, C. T. (1997, June). Religious orientation and social identity: Towards a theoretical integra tion. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Burris, C. T. , Jackson, L. M., Tarpley, W. R., & Smith, G. (1996). Religion as quest: The self-di rected purs uit of meaning. Pe rsonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1068-1076. Burris, C. T., & Tarpley, W. R . (1998). Religion

Scales o f Religiou s Orientation as being: Preliminary validation of the Immanence Scale. Journal of Research in Pe rsonality, 32, 55-79. Donahue, M. J. (1 985). Intrinsic and extrinsic rel igiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400-419. Hood, R. w., Jr., & Morris, R. J. (1985). Con ceptualization of quest: A critical rejoinder to Bat son. Review of Religious Research, 26, 391-397. Kojetin, B. A., McIntosh, D. N., Bridges, R. A., & Spilka, B. (1987). Quest: Constructive search or religious conflict? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26, 111- 11 5.

141

McFarland, S. G. (1 989). Religious orientation and the targets of discrimination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 324-336. Paloutzian, R. F. (1 983) . Invitation to the psy chology of religion. Glenview, IL : Scott, Fores man. Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J. , & Hood, R. W., Jf. (1989). Interactional factor correlations with means and end religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 337-347. Wulff, D. M. (1997). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary. New York: Wiley.

Appendix

Quest Scale

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the items by using the following scale: 1 2 Strongly disagree

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Strongly agree

1. As I grow and change, I expect my religion also to grow and change. 2. I am constantly questioning my religious beliefs. 3. It might be said that I value my religious doubts and uncertainties. 4 . I was not very interested in religion until I began to ask questions about the meaning and purpose of my life. S. For me, doubting is an important part of what it means to be religious. 6. (-) I do not expect my religious convictions to change in the next few years. 7. (-) I find religious doubts upsetting. 8. I have been driven to ask religious questions out of a growing awareness of the tensions in my world and in my relation to my world. 9. My life experiences have led me to rethink my religious convictions. 10. There are many religious issues on which my views are still changing. 11. God wasn't very important to me until I began to ask questions about the meaning of my own life. 12. Questions are far more central to my religious experience than are answers. Note. (-) indicates reverse-scoring. Items 4, 8, 9, and 11 tap the "existential questions" aspect. Items 3, 5, 7, and 12 tap the "doubting as positive" aspect. Items 1,2,6, and 10 tap the "openness to change" aspect. Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. (1991). Meas uring religion as quest: 2. Reliability concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 430-447 . Copyright © 199 1 Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Reprinted with permission.

--

~-

142

-

-

-----

----~

M EASURES OF R ELIGIOSITY

3.8

RELIGIOUS MATURITY SCALE (Dudley & Cruise, 1990)

Reviewed by P. J. Watson

Variable : The Religious Maturity Scale (RMS) was developed in response to recent controversies in the psychology of religion. Widely used measures of intrinsic and com mitted religiousness originate in efforts to operationalize Allport's (1950) classic de scription of religious maturity. According to Batson and his colleagues (e.g., Batson & Ventis, 1982), these measures have failed to achieve their purpose. Allport emphasized open-mindedness as one aspect of religious maturity, whereas these instuments puta tively record the orthodox fanaticism of a "true believer." Batson's Quest Scale seeks to redress this presumed problem by mea suring a tolerant existential struggle for meaning. High scores on the Quest Scale are designed to reveal a more cognitively flexible religious orientation in which faith is wedded to doubt. Like others before them, Dudley and Cruise (1990) criticize this conceptualization of Quest. They suggest that doubt is incom patible wi th the sincere commitment that Allport identified as another aspect of ma ture religion. To their way of thinking, a per son who scores high on Quest "would be re quired to strongly agree with one set of items stressing commitment and the impor tance of faith while at the same time strongly agreeing with another set of items stressing religious doubts and uncertainties. To us this seems rather illogical, not to mention un comfortable" (Dudley & Cruise, p. 100). In their Religious Maturity Scale, Dudley and Cruise present what they hope to be a more defensible index of the personal reli gious search for meaning. They define reli gious maturity within a psychological rather than a theological framework. The focu s, in other words, is on the process of being reli gious rather than on the content of particular theological beliefs . High scores theoreti cally reflect a creative tension between sin cere commitment and a tentative open mindedness, rather than doubt. As described

by this scale, the religiously mature individ ual believes, "I want to be ready to progress in my understanding when a new piece of the 'truth' becomes clear to me. In the meantime I will live by the light I have" (Dudley & Cruise, p. 101).

Description: As a process rather than a con tent measure of religious commitment, this scale may be appropriate fo r use with all types of religious subjects, including those outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Items were written after a careful analysis of Allport's (1950) claim that a mature reli gion should be "( 1) well differentiated; (2) dynamic in character in spite of its deriva tive nature; (3) productive of a consistent morality; (4) comprehensive ; (5 ) integral; and (6) fundamentally heuristic" (Allport as quoted by Dudley and Cruise, p. 98). Twenty-six statements of religious maturity were combined with 28 other Intrinsic, Ex trinsic, and Quest items to form a Personal Religion Inventory. This inventory was administered to a sample of 49 1 mostly university students. Each statement was followed by a 5-point Likert-style agreement scale. A factor analy sis of the entire inventory uncovered three orthogonal dimensions, with the third re flecting religious maturity. The 11 state ments loading on this factor were combined into the Religious Maturity Scale (see ap pendix). Three negatively scored items artic ulated religious immaturity, with eight oth ers expressing maturity. Total scores were computed by summing across all 11 items, resulting in a possible range of 11 to 55.

Practical Considerations: The Religious Maturity Scale appears to be a straightfor ward self- report measure. All items display an obvious face vali dity, and completion of the scale should be possible within ten and perhaps five minutes. Dudley and Cruise did not determine the reading level of their instrument, but comprehension of at least


some items might demand a fairly high level of education. This possibility perhaps is il lustrated in the foll owing item: "I have found many religious questions to be diffi cult and complex so I am hesitant to be dog matic or fi nal in my assertions."

Norms/Standardization : Most of the 491 subjects used by Dudley and Cruise were Catholic or Seventh-day Adventist univer sity students. Seventy older adolescents and a smaller group of adults attending various religious functions were included as well. The Religious Maturity mean and standard deviation were not reported for this sample. Reliability: Dudley and Cruise obtained a coefficient alpha of .55. They argued that thi s internal reliability was not higher be cause the construct is a difficult one to oper ationalize. It is not easy, they claimed, to combine "the intelligent and informed com mitment to a belief system, with the open minded tentativeness of the searcher of truth" (Dudley & Cruise, p. 103 ). The au thors did note, however, that a more accept able coefficient alpha of .68 was uncovered in another investigation examining a na tional sample of over 400 participants.

143

Validity: The title of this article explicitly states that the goal of Dudley and Cruise was to present "a proposed scale." The au thors consequently supplied little supportive validity evidence. They did find, however, that their instrument correlated as expected with greater Quest (.37), but not with the In trinsic (. 10) or Extrinsic (.02) religious ori entations. Location : Dudley, R. L. , & Cruise, R. J. (1990). Measur ing religious maturity: A proposed scale. Revie w of Religious Research, 32, 97-109.

Recent Research: Dudley, M. G., & Kosinski, F. A., Jf. (1990). Re ligiosity and marital satisfaction: A research note. Review of Religious Research, 32, 78-86. Dudley, R. L., Hernandez, E. 1., & Terian, S. M. K. (1992). Religiosity and public issues among Seventh-day Adventists. Review of Religious Re search, 33, 330- 348.

References Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his re ligion. New York: Macmillan. Batson, C. D., & Ventis, W. L. (1982). The reli gious experience: A social-psychological perspec tive. New York: Oxford University Press.

Appendix Religious Maturity Scale Here are some statements that show how some people feel about religion. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each by circling a number on a 5-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

1. My religious beliefs provide me with satisfying answers at this stage of my develop

ment, but I am prepared to alter them as new information becomes available.

2. I am happy with my present religion but wish to be open to new insights and ways of

understanding the meaning of life.

3. As best as I can determine, my religion is true, but I recognize that I could be mistaken

on some points.

4. Important questions about the meaning of life do not have simple or easy answers;

therefore faith is a developmental process.

*5. I could not commit myself to a religion unless I was certain that it is completely true. 6. I have struggled in trying to understand the problems of evil, suffering, and death that

mark this world.

I

144

MEASUR ES OF RELIGIOSIT Y

*7. Churches should concentrate on proclaiming the gospel and not become involved in trying to change society through social or political action. 8. While we can never be quite sure that what we believe is absolutely true, it is worth acting on the probability that it may be. 9. I have found many religious questions to be difficult and complex so I am hesitant to be dogmatic or final in my assertions. 10. In my religion my relationships with other people are as fundamental as my relation ship with God.

* 11.

My religious beliefs are pretty much the same today as they were five years ago.

An asterisk (*) identifies a negatively scored item for which 1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 5 = 1. Presented to the side of each statement is the following rating scale : Strongly Disagree 1

2

3

4

= 3, 4 = 2, and

Strongly Agree 5

Dudley, R. L., & Cruise, R. J. (1990). Measuring religious maturity: A proposed scale. Review of Religious Research, 32, (2),97- 109. Copyright © 1990. Review of Religious Research. Reprinted with permission.

3.9 RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION SCALE (Allport & Ross, 1967) Reviewed by Christopher T. Burris

Variable: The Religious Orientation Scale (ROS) is based on Allport's early (1 950) conceptual work where he characterized the so-called mature religious sentiment as: " 1) well-diffe rentiated [complex and critically embraced]; 2) dynamic in character in spite of its derivative nature [motivational in and of itself] ; 3) prod uctive of a consistent morality [shapes personal ethical code]; 4) comprehensive [applies to all areas of life]; 5) integral [capable of assimilating new in formation] ; and 6) fundamentally heuristic [tentatively, though not lightly, held]" (pp. 64-65, interpretive brackets inserted). The "immature" religious sentiment, it was as sumed, embodied the opposite of these characteristics. Details of the immature-ma ture distinction are largely absent from later discussions (Allport, 1966; Allport & Ross, 1967) of the relabeled extrinsic and intrinsic religious orientations; however, it is unclear whether this omission represented a narrow ing of Allport's thinking or merely an indi cation that the earlier proposed differences

had become implicit assumptions. Still ex plicit, however, was that religious orienta tion (or sentiment) is a motivational con struct: "Instrumental versus ultimate," "peripheral versus central," and "servant versus master" all capture the essence of the differential role that Allport assumed reli gion to occupy within the individual's life depending on whether he or she is extrinsi cally or intrinsically oriented, respectively. More formally, extrinsic religious orienta tion refers to a flagrantly utilitarian motiva tion underlying religious behaviors: The in dividual endorses religious beliefs and attitudes or engages in religious acts only to the extent that they might aid in achieving mundane goals, such as feeling comforted and protected or acquiring social status and approval. In contrast, intrinsic religious ori entation refers to motivation arising from goals set forth by the religious tradition it self, and is thus assumed to have an "oth erly," nonmundane, even self-denying qual ity: Religion is regarded as a "master

Sc ales of Religious Orientation

motive ... [whereas] other needs, strong as they may be, are regarded as of less ultimate signific ance" (Allport & Ross, 1967, p. 434, brackets inserted). Based on this distinction, many subsequent researchers have adopted the convenient, albeit simplistic, conceptual shorthand, initiated by Allport and Ross themselves, of referring to the extrinsic-in trinsic distinction as "using" versus "living" one's religion.

Description : Subscales. Although the ROS represents Allport's capstone effort to operationalize the extrinsic and intrinsic religious orienta tions, there were at least two earlier efforts to tap these constructs. Specifically, Wilson (1 960), with as sistance from Allport, con structed a 15-item, forced-choice measure of extrinsic (but not intrinsic) "religious val ues." Several years later, Feagi n (1964) pre sented 21 items from whence he derived both a 6-item Extrinsic and a 6-item Intrin sic Scale. (All but 1 of Feagin's original 21 items subsequently appeared in the ROS .) Neither of these earlier efforts has received the empirical attention that the ROS has, however. Within the ROS itself, the Extri nsic (sub )scale assesses an individual's degree of acknowledgment of the peripheral role that religion plays in his or her life, as well as the degree to which he or she frankly admits to religious involvement in order to secure solace and/or social approval. That is, the items appear to operationalize straightfor wardly the key elements of extrinsic orien tation as Allport (1966; Allport & Ross, 1967) understood them. Sampled from a variety of religious atti tudes, behaviors , and intentions, Intrinsic (sub )scale items at first glance seem less conceptually focu sed than do Extrinsic items. To the extent that intrinsic orientation involves enshrining religion as the "master motive" of one's life as Allport and Ross (1967) suggested, however, the items make considerable sense, for they all reflect the no-nonsense fervency of commitment that such a master motive might evoke (at least as it might be articulated within a traditional

145

Christian context; see "Practical Considera tions"). Scoring. Extrinsic and Intrinsic RO S items are best treated as composing distinct scales, owing to the absence of a straightfor ward inverse relationship between the two orientations (see "Validity"). Thus, given the 5-point (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) response format used in the original report (Allport & Ross, 1967), sep arate summation of the respective scale items yields score ranges of 11-55 and 9-45 for the Extrinsic and Intrinsic Scales. A 9 point response format is preferred by some researchers (e.g., Batson, 1976). Regardless of the specific response format used, it is recommended that means are scaled to the response format rather than reported as un scaled totals, for the former allows for meaningful comparisons between Extrinsic and Intrinsic scale scores within a given sample. Another scoring issue linked to validity is whether and how individuals should be assigned religious-orientation-type labels based on their Extrinsic and Intrinsic scores (see, e.g., Burris, 1994; Hood, 1978; but also see Batson et aI., 1993). This issue was initially confronted by Allport and Ross (1967) when Extrinsic and Intrinsic scores in their samples appeared to be linearly in dependent rather than inversely related as expected. In order to account primarily for those individuals who simultaneously tended toward agreement on both the Ex trinsic and Intrinsic Scales-the so-called indiscriminately proreligious-Allport and Ross treated these respondents as a group, comparing them on pertinent dependent variables with those who tended toward agreement on only one of the two scales ("Extrinsics" or "Intrinsics"), and with those who tended toward disagreement on both scales (the "indiscriminately proreli gious"). This later evolved into a median split approach to classification, in which the four groups are created based on whether individuals score above or below the respec tive Extrinsic and Intrinsic medians for that sample. The chief advantage of the median split approach is that it assures a relatively

---146

- -

MEASURES OF R ELIGIOSIT Y

equal representation of respondents in each of the four groups regardless of sample characteristics. This is also the chief disad vantage: Extrinsic and Intrinsic score distri butions-and thus, their medians-vary as a function of faith tradition (see Burris, Jack son, Tarpley, & Smith, 1996, Study 3), so labeled groups (e.g., Intrinsics) may not be comparable across samples. For this reason, the more conceptually meaningful practice of splitting the sample at the scales' theoret ical mid- or neutral-point (e.g., 5 on a 1- 9 scale) is preferred. Whatever the procedure, Burris (1994) has recommended that typing be employed only when adequately theoreti cally j ustified. Spin- offs. Suggested revisions and re placements for the ROS scales have been numerous, although they have generally arisen based on one of two types of criti cisms: the "pure empirical" and the "con ceptual-empirical. " Pure empirical criti cisms focus on one or more of the ROS's perceived psychometric inadequacies, e.g., the absence of a strongly inverse Extrinsic/ Intrinsic correlation (Hoge, 1972; see also this volume), low interitem correlations and/or multidimensionality of especially the Extrinsic Scale (Genia, 1993 ; Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989; see also this volume ; Kirkpatrick 1989), or excessively abstruse item wording (Gorsuch & Venable, 1983 ; see also this volume). Conceptual-empirical criticisms are based more on what the ROS does and does not measure than on how well it measures. Typically, Allport's writings on immature/extrinsic and maturelintrinsic reli gion are compared against the content of ROS items, discrepancies are noted, and new scales are proposed to fill the presumed conceptual gaps (e .g., Dudley & Cruise, 1990). Of these, the most empirically pro lifi c has been Batson's (1976; Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993) means-end ap proach. It will thus be discussed in some de tail. According to Batson (1976), Allport's (1950) depiction of the "mature" religious sentiment actually confounds two forms of religious orientation that are conceptually and empirically distinct. The Intrinsic scale

of the ROS taps only the "religion as master motive" theme that pervades Allport's dis cussion of the intrinsic orientation 'in later writings, Batson claimed : Unmeasured by either the Intrinsic or the Extrinsic Scale is the motivation to grapple with existential questions, to view religious doubts as posi tive, and to remain open to religious change that peppers earlier discussions of the ma ture sentiment. Batson and colleagues thus developed the Interactional, or Quest, Scale to tap these hitherto unmeasured themes (Batson, 1976; Batson & Schoenrade, 1991; see also this volume), and three additional scales intended to capture additional aspects of the extrinsic and intrinsic orientations that seemed implicit but unmeasured in the two constructs. Specifi cally, based on his assumption that the "master motive" quality of the in trinsic orientation may be an outgrowth of needs for certainty, strength , and direction that express themselves outwardly (in part) through wholehearted endorsement of insti tutionally approved religious doctri nes, Bat son (1976) constructed the Internal and Doctrinal Orthodoxy scales. The former es sentially measures an individual's "need to believe" (in religion) ; the latter measures an individual's degree of endorsement of a number of traditional Christian beliefs . Both scales were predicted and found to be mod erately to strongly positively correlated with the Intrinsic scale. The remaining, External, scale measures the degree to which an indi vidual's religion is affected by influential others such as peers, family members, and lay or professional religious workers. Bat son (1976) initially predicted that this scale would be positively correlated with the Ex trinsic scale; it has, however, almost invari antly correlated positively with the Intrinsic Scale instead, leading Batson et al. (1 993, p. 169) to concede that the initial assumption has "proved wrong." The six scales (all of which use a 9-point response format) in combination are in tended to measure three dimensions of reli gious orientation that Batson assumes (and statistically forces) to be independent: The devout, doctrinaire End dimension (assessed

'

Scales of Religious Orien tation

by the Intrinsic, Internal, External, and Doc trinal Orthodoxy Scales), the utilitarian Means dimension (assessed primarily by the Extrinsic Scale), and the existentially toned Quest dimension (assessed primarily by the Quest Scale). The statistical procedures for deriving Means and End (as well as Quest) scores are sufficiently complex as to be be yond the scope of this volume; see Batson et aI . (1 993) for details.

Practical Considerations: Although Allport used the term "religion" rather generically in his theoretical works, he was undoubt edly influenced by his cultural, familial, and personal ties to a North American Protestant articulation of Christianity in his construc tion of the ROS (see Wulff, 1997). Hence, items including references to church and Bible study, for example, restrict the ROS's interpretability primarily to respondents with a Christian background. Modificatio ns involving less sectarian wording, e.g. , from "church" to "religious gathering," that do not alter the items' meaning substantially are therefore recommended. Another problematic issue concerns con ditional items, i.e., those containing a premise such as "although I believe in my religion ...." Nonreligious respondents in particular have difficulty answering such questions because they disagree with the premise. Because respondents' strategies for handling these items differ (i.e., some skip the items, some indicate strong disagree ment, and some mark the scale midpoint), the reliability of particularly the Extrinsic Scale can be adversely affected. Specific in structions to as sist respondents, e.g., "If you disagree with the premise on which an item is based, mark the response indicating 'strongly disagree' instead of leaving the item blank," are therefore encouraged. Finally, as noted under "Description ," the ROS has been criticized for the relatively high reading level of its items. Although this probably presents no problem in most adult samples , it is a legitimate concern when working with special adult popula tions or with children. An "age universal" version of the ROS has been developed for

14 7

such instances (Gorsuch & Venable, 1983; see also this volume).

Norms/Standardization: Allport and Ross's (1 967) sample consisted of 309 members of six different churches/denominations (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Nazarene, Pres byterian, Methodist, Baptist) scattered across the eastern United States, a sample that was claimed to be "in no sense repre sentative" (p. 436). Unfortunately, Allport and Ross reported Intrinsic and Extrinsic scale means for neither each subsample nor the total sample. Donahue (l 985a, p. 419) speculated that "smaller, more sect-like [re ligious] groups, would be expected to have higher Intrinsic and lower Extrinsic scores than larger denominations due to their more stringent membership requirements." Offer ing some support for this speculation, Burris et al. (1 996, Study 3) fou nd higher Intrinsic scores among conservative Protestant groups (e.g., Baptist, Pentecostal, Mormon) than among either liberal Protestants (e.g-., Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian) or Catholics in a midwestern U.S. university sample. Conservative Protestants also aver aged lower on the Extrinsic scale compared to Catholics but not compared to liberal Protestants. Reliability: Internal consistencies reported for the ROS Intrinsic scale range from ade quate to excellent, with Cronbach's alphas most typically in the mid .80s (e.g. , Don ahue, 1985a). Internal consistencies re ported for the ROS Extrinsic scale are in variably lower, with Cronbach's alphas most typically in the low .70s (e.g. , Don ahue, 1985a). Burris and Tarpley (in press, footnote 3) reported two-week test-retest re liabilities of .84 and .78 for the Intrinsic and Extrinsic scales, respectively (N = 61). The lower reliabilities associated with the Ex trinsic scale, although subject to criticism, can be attributed-at least in part-to the scale's tapping of multiple manifestations of the extrinsic orientation (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 1989). Whether the trade-off of psychomet ric potency for conceptual breadth is justifi able remains open to debate.

)

14 8

M E ASURES OF RELIGIO SITY

Validity: Evaluating the validity of the ROS Intrinsic and Extrinsic scales is, unfortu nately, not a simple task, given the subtle shifts in emphasis in Allport's writings over time, and given the value-Iadenness of the religious orientation constructs. The first issue affects evaluations of the scales' struc tural properties; the second raises questions as to what standards or markers should be considered relevant to validity. Structure. As earlier noted, Allport's dis cussion (if not his conceptualization) of the intrinsic orien tation appeared to narrow over time to a primary emphasis on the ori entation's "master motive" character. Thus it could be argued that the adequacy of the Intrinsic scale as a measure of intrinsic ori entation depends on whether one focuses on Allport's early or later writings. The Intrin sic scale 's combination of relatively high in ternal consistency and breadth of item con tent would seem to support its validity as a measure of "religion as a master motive." Indeed, from this perspective, that intrinsic items scatter across a number of factors when factor-analyzed with other items tap ping traditional religious attitudes and activ ities is not as problematic as Hunt and King (1 971) claimed. Rather, the scattering can be interpreted as suggesting a common un derlying construct, i.e., centralized religious motivation. On the other hand, the Intrinsic scale does not appear to be adequate as a comprehensive measure of "religious matu rity" a la Allport (1950), as Batson (1976) has demonstrated. In contrast, there is much less uncertainty as to whether the Extrinsic scale gets at the intended orientation. Although the scale's multidimensionality has been criticized on both conceptual and empirical grounds (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 1989) that Extrinsic items load on separable factors related to comfort-seek ing, status-seeking, and the admission of re ligion's tangentiality conforms precisely to Allport's (1 966; Allport & Ross, 1967) con ceptualization. Thus, from a structural-con tent standpoint, the validity of the Extrinsic scale, like the validity of the Intrinsic scale, is very much a matter of perspective.

The same can be said from a structural relational standpoint. As was earlier noted, Allport and Ross (1967) clearly expected a strong, inversely linear relationship between their Extrinsic and Intrinsic items-consis tent with an hypothesized bipolar religious orientation dimension-rather than the near zero linear correlation between the two scales that they found. In fact, the expected negative relationship has been obtained but has been restricted to theologically conserv ative samples (Donahue, 1985b), leading the maj ority of researchers (e.g., Batson, 1976) to conclude that Allport was wrong, i.e., that the extrinsic and intrinsic orienta tions are not opposites but are independent. Burris (1994) demonstrated, however, that the frequently observed near-zero linear re lationship masks a substantial nonlinear re lationship. Specifically, the Intrinsic and Extrinsic scales were shown to be inversely curvilinearly related such that, below the In trinsic midpoint, the IntrinsiclExtrinsic cor relation is positive, suggesting rejection of both fo rms of religious motivation, or sim ple irreligiosity. Above the Intrinsic mid point, however, the Intrinsic/Extrinsic corre lation is negative, suggesting that, as reported intrinsic orientation increases, re ported extrinsic orientation decreases . (A similar overall rel ationship has been ob served for the Intrinsic and Quest scales see Burris, 1994). This pattern thus offers at least partial support of Allport and Ross's bipolarity assumption, b ut no support for the independence assumption. Sta ndards. The value-Iadenness of the extrinsic/intrinsic distinction is most evident when determining what should serve as standards or markers of the ROS's validity. Allport and Ross (1967) provided no data rel evant to the validity of the Extrinsic and Intrinsic scales, apparently assuming that the differential relationship observed be tween measures of ethnocentrism and these two scales was adequate. Their assumption was clear: As the old "mature" and "imma ture" labels implied, the intrinsic orientation was seen as the embodiment of "good" or "true" religion, whereas the extrinsic orien tation was the embodiment of "bad" or

Scales of Religio us Orien tation

"false" religion; "true" religion cannot, or at least should not, fo ster intolerance. Al though perhaps quite compelling as a theo logical prescription, this assumption- that prejudice or its absence should ipso facto serve as a criterion for the religious orienta tion scales' validity- warrants clearer psy chological (i.e., conceptual) justification. Much sub sequent research utilizing the ROS and related measures has sidestepped issues of validity, however, by relying-as did Allport-upon an implicit "extrinsic is bad, intrinsic is good" heuristic. As a conse quence, research that challenges the moral fi ber and purity of motives assumed to be associated with the intrinsic orientation is often met with sharp criticism and accusa tions of bias. For example, consider the re current observation of a positive correlation between the Intrinsic scale and various mea sures of social desirability (e.g., Batson, Naifeh, & Pate, 1978). The straightforward interpretation of this is that higher intrinsic orientation is predictive of an increased need to "look good" to oneself and others. Defenders of the intrinsic orientation have responded by suggesting that measures of social desirability are biased against reli gious respondents or, alternatively, that in trinsically oriented individuals report being more socially desirable because they are more socially desirable (e.g., Watson, Mor ris, Foster, & Hood, 1986; Richards, 1994), although empirical support for either con tention remains rather questionable (Burris, 1994; Leak & Fish, 1989). Similar denunci ations (e.g., Gorsuch, 1993) have been made with respect to research linking the intrinsic orientation with subtle and not-so-s ubtle forms of prej udice (see Batson & Burris , 1994, for a review). In contrast, thi s re viewer is unaware of any comparable accu sations of bias with respect to research demonstrating links between the extrinsic orientation and unsavory variables such as ethnocentrism. To be certain, the conceptual and empiri cal claims and counterclaims raised regard ing the extrinsic and intrinsic orientations remain sensitive and controversial. That is precisely the point: Allport's framework,

149

because of its implicit value assumptions, seldom elicits indifference. Moreover, re searchers' personal responses to these value assumptions undoubtedly affect how ques tions of validity are framed. Indeed, one might suggest that, failing all else, the ROS might serve as a sort of projective test of the values and predilections of psychologists of religion! Having said this, what data (if any) might speak regarding the validity of the Extrinsic and Intrinsic scales? If the Intrinsic scale indeed measures "re ligion as a master motive," it should be rather strongly positively correlated with measures tapping commitment to, or as cribed importance of, religion. This is, in fact, the case (Donahue, 1985b). Moreover, numerous studies have found a positive cor relation between the Intrinsic scale and measures of one's general sense of purpose in life, also consistent with the "master mo tive" conceptualization (see Batson et aI., 1993, chap. 8). If the Extrinsic scale indeed taps a "hands-off" attitude toward religion, then it should not be positively correlated with measures of religious commitment. Once again, this is the case (Donahue, 1985b). Moreover, if the Extrinsic scale assesses one's frank admission of using religion for comfort, then it should be linked to vari ables suggestive of stress and maladj ust ment, i.e., variables that might encourage an otherwise irreligious person to "try " reli gion. Research is generally consistent with this suggestion: Batson et al. (1993) con cluded, based on a review of findings from over 40 studies, that there is "considerable evidence that this [extrinsic, means] dimen sion is negatively associated with several conceptions of mental health," including "appropriate social behavior" and "freedom from worry and guilt" (p. 286, brackets in serted). Moreover, Burris, Batson, and Wag oner (1992) found that persons randomly as signed to complete an esteem-threatening writing task subsequently scored higher on the personal comfort subscale of the Extrin sic scale (Kirkpatrick, 1989) than did those who completed a neutral writing task, offer ing some experimental evidence for validity.

150

MEASURES O F RELIGIOSITY

Direct evidence of this sort suggesting that the Extrinsic scale effectively taps the use of religion to bolster one's social status has yet to be produced, however. In short, the research reviewed here limited in scope due to the sheer breadth of the literature, and conservatively selective due the the value-Iadenness of the con structs-seems generally supportive of the validity of the extrinsic and intrinsic orien tations and the scales used to measure them. The research does not, however, support Allport's conceptualizations in every detail, a fact that will undoubtedly elicit sparring between apologists and critics of religious orientation for some time yet (e.g., Kirk patrick & Hood, 1990; Masters, 199 1). In this reviewer's opinion, essential to ensur ing a "fair fight" is a retooling of Allport's model based upon what has been learned in the past three decades. Such a revised framework should remain true to the mo ti ve-centered spirit-if not the letter-of Allport's extrinsic-intrinsic framework, but should also be capable of incorporating reli gious orientations more recently identi fied-e.g., Batson's (1976) quest. Such a re vised framework should also move beyond theological prescriptions to psychological principles as a basis for predicting and ex plaining relationships between religious ori entation and variables of interest, e.g., prej udice, prosocial behavior, and mental health. It is a hopeful sign that attempts at such a framework are beginning to appear (e.g., Pargament, 1992; Burris, 1997). Given the fervency with which he strove to understand the vagaries of religious motiva tion during his own life, we can only as sume that Allport would have wanted it this way.

Location: The ROS does not appear in All port and Ross (1967), although the authors refer the reader to an address from which it can be obtained. A number of secondary sources present the ROS items, however, in cluding Batson et al. (1993) and Wulff (1997). Batson et al. (1993) also contains the Internal, External, and Doctrinal Ortho doxy scale items.

Subsequent Research: Batson, C. D., & Flory, J. D. (1990). Goal-rele vant cognitions associated with helping by individ uals high on intrinsic, end religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Relig ion, 29, 346-360. Burris, C. T. , Batson, C. D., Altstaedten, M., & Stephens, K. (1994). "What a friend ...": Loneli ness as a motivator of intrinsic religion. Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 326-334. Hathaway, W. L., & Pargament, K. I. (1990). In trinsic religiousness, religious coping, and psy chosocial competence: A covariance structure analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli gion, 29, 423-441 . Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1993). Fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, and intrinsic religious orienta tion as predictors of discriminatory attitudes. Jour nal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32 , 256-268. McFarland, S. G. , Warren, J. c., Jr. (1992) . Reli gious orientation and selective exposure among fundamentalist Christians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31, 163-174.

References Allport, G. W. (1950). Th e individual and his re ligion. New York: MacMillan. Allport, G. W. (1966). The religious context of prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli gion, 5,447-457. Allport, G. w., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Per sonality and Social Psychology, 5, 447-457. Batson , C. D. (1976). Religion as prosocial: Agent or double-agent? Jou rna l for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15, 29-45. Batson, C. D., & Burris, C. T. (J 994). Personal religion: Depressant or stimulant of prejudice and discrimination? In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The seventh Ontario symposium on person ality and social psychology: The psychology of prejudice (pp. 149-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Batson, C. D., Naifeh, S. J., & Pate, S. (197 8). Social desirability, religious orientation, and racial prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli gion, 17, 31-4l. Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1 99 1). Mea suring religion as quest: 2. Reliability concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 430-447. Batson, C. D. , Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psy chological perspective. New York: Oxford Univer sity, Press.

Scales of Religious Orien tation Burris, C. T. (1994). Curvilinearity and religious types: A second look at intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest relations. International Journal for the Psy chology of Religion , 4, 245-260. Burris, C. T. (1997, June). Religious orientation and social identity: Towa rds a theoretical integra tion. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Burris, C. T., Batson, C. D., & Wagoner, K. C. (1992, November). Effect of esteem threat on in trinsic and extrinsic religion. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Washington, D. C. Burris, C. T., Jackson, L. M., Tarpley, W. R., & Smith, G. (1 996). Religion as quest: The self-di rected pursuit of meaning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1068-1076. Burris, C. T., & Tarpley, W. R. (1998). Religion as being: Preliminary validation of the Immanence cale. Journa l of Research in Personality , 32, 55-79. Donahue, M. J. (\985a). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: The empirical research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24, 418- 423. Donahue, M . J. (\985b). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Jou rnal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400-419. Dudley, R. L., & Cruise, R. 1. (1990). Measur ing religious maturity: A proposed scale. Review of Religious Research, 32, 97-1 09. Feagin, J. R . ( 1964). Prejudice and reli gious Iypes: A focused study of southern fundamentalists. Jo urnal fo r the Scientific Study of Religion, 4, 3-13. Genia, V. ( 1993). A psychometric evaluation of the Allport-Ross lIE scales in a religiously hetero geneous sample. Journal fo r the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 284-290. Gorsuch, R. L. (1993). Religion and prejudice: Lessons not learned from the past. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3, 29-3 1. Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1 989). In trinsic/extrinsic measurement: lIE Revised and sin gle-item scales. Jou rnal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 348-352. Gorsuch, R. L., & Venable, G. D. (1983). Devel opment of an "age-universal" I-E scale. Journal jor the Scientific Study of Religion, 22,181 - 187. Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic reli

151

gious motivation scale. Journa l for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 369-376. Hood, R. w., Jr. (1978). The usefulness of the indiscriminately pro and anti categori es of religious orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli gion, 17, 41 9-431. Hu nt, R. A., & King, M. (1971). The extrinsic intrinsic concept: A review and evaluation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 10, 339-356. Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1989). A psychometric analysis of the Allport-Ross and Feagin measures of intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation. In M. L. Lynn & D. O. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the so cial scientifi c study of religion (Vol. 1, pp. 1-31). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ki rkpatrick, L. A. , & Hood, R. W., Jr. (1990). Intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation: The boon or bane of contemporary psychology of religion? Journal for the Sc ientific Study of Religion, 29, 442-462. Leak, G. K. , & Fis h, S. (1 989). Religious orien tation, impression management, and self-deception: Toward a clarification of the link between religios ity and social desirability. Journal fo r the Scientific Study o/Religion, 28,355-359. Masters, K. S. (1991 ). Of boons , banes, babies, and bath water: A reply to the Kirkpatrick and Hood discussion of intrinsic-extrinsic religious orien ta tion. Jou rnal fo r the Scientific Study of Religion, 30,31 2-317 . Pargament, K. 1. (1992). Of means 3.nd ends: Re ligion and the search for significance. International Journal f or the Psychology of Religion, 2, 201-229. Richards, P. S. (1 994). Religious devoutness , impression management, and personality function ing in college students. Journa l of Research in Per sonality, 28, 14-26. Watson, P. J., Morris , R. J ., Foster, J. E. , & Hood, R. W., Jr. (1986). Religiosity and social de sirability. Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli gion, 25, 215-232. Wilson, W. C. (1960). Extrinsic religious values and prejudice. Jo urnal ofAbnormal and Social Psy chology , 60, 286-288. Wulff, D. M . (1997) . Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary. New York : Wiley.

•


152

Appendix A Religious Orientation Scale (ROS) Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each item below by using the following rating scale:*

strongly disagree

2 disagree

3 neutral

4 agree

5 strongly agree

Extrinsic (sub )scale **

1. Although I believe in life.

m~

religion, I feel there are many more important things in my

2. It doesn't matter so muc what I believe so long as I lead a moral life. 3. The primary purpose of prayer is to gain relief and protection. 4. The church is· most important as a place to formulate good social relationships. 5. What religion offers me most is comfort when sorrows and misfortune strike. 6. I pray chiefly because I have been taught to pray. 7. Although I am a religious person I refuse to let religious considerations influence my everyday affairs. 8. A primary reason for my interest in religion is that my church is a congenial social activity. 9. Occasionally I find it necessary to compromise my religious beliefs in order to pro tect my social and economic well-being. 10. One reason for my being a church member is that such membership helps to establish a person in the community. 11. The purpose of prayer is to secure a happy and peaceful life. ***12. Religion helps to keep my life balanced and steady in exactly the same way as my

citizenship, friendships, and other memberships do. Intrinsic (sub )scale **

1. It is important for me to spend periods of time in private religious thought and medita tion. 2. If not prevented by unavoidable circumstances, I attend church. 3. I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life. 4. The prayers I say when I am alone carry as much meaning and personal emotion as those said by me during services. 5. Quite often I have been keenly aware of the presence of God or the Divine Being. 6. I read literature about my faith (or church). 7. If I were to join a church group I would prefer to join a Bible study group rather than a social fellowship. 8. My religious beliefs are really what lie behind my whole approach to life.


153

9. Religion is especially important because it answers many questions about the meaning of life. *Many researchers have used a 9-point response format.

**The ordering of all 20 items should be scrambled.

*** Indicates an additional Extrinsic item used by Feagin (1964) but not by Allport and Allport and Ross

(1967) .

h

tson's Supplementary "End Dimension" Scales

Please indic te the extent to which you agree or disagree with each item below by using the following rat ~g scale: * \ 1 2 3 4 5 neutral agree strongly strongly disagree agree disagree

Internal scale 1. My religious development is a natural response to our innate need for devotion to God. 2. God's will should shape my life. 3. It is necessary for me to have a religious belief. 4. When it comes to religious questions, I feel driven to know the truth. 5. (-) Religion is something I have never felt personally compelled to consider. 6. (-) Whether I turn out to be religious or not doesn't make much difference to me. 7. I have found it essential to have faith. 8. I find it impossible to conceive of myself not being religious. 9. (-) For me, religion has not been a "must." External scale 1. The church has been very important for my religious development. 2. My minister (or youth director, camp counselor, etc.) has had a profound influence on my personal religious development. 3. A major factor in my religious development has been the importance of religion for my parents. 4. My religion serves to satisfy needs for fellowship and security. 5. Certain people have served as "models" for my religious development. 6. (-) Outside forces (other persons, church, etc.) have been relatively unimportant in my religious development. Doctrinal Orthodoxy scale 1. I believe in the existence of a just and merciful personal God. 2. I believe God created the universe. 3. I believe God has a plan for the universe. 4. I believe Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God. 5. I believe Jesus Christ was resurrected (raised from the dead). 6. I believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. 7. I believe one must accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior to be saved from sin. 8. I believe in the "second coming" (that Jesus Christ will one day return to judge and rule the world). 9. I believe in "original sin" (we are all born sinners). 10. I believe in life after death.

154


II . I believe there is a transcendent realm (an "other" world, not just this world in which we live). 12, I believe the Bible is the unique authority for God's will. Note . (-) indicates ~everse~cored item. For additional unscored buffer items, as well as details regard ing scoring proced es, see Batson et al. (1993).

Batson, C. D. , Schoenrade, P., & Ventis , W. L. (1993). Religion and the Individual: A social-psychologi cal perspective, ~ew York: Oxford University Press. Copyright © 1993 Oxford University Press. Reprinted with permission.

3.10

RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION SCALE-REVISED

(Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989)

Reviewed by Peter C. Hill

Variable: The Religious Orientation Scale Revised, referred to by the authors as Intrin sic/Extrinsic-Revised (I/E-R) , measures both the intrinsic and extrinsic religious ori entation originally posited by Allport (1950). Kirkpatrick's (1989) conclusion, based on a reanalysis of several studies using Allport and Ross's (1967) original Religious Orienta tion Scale (see this volume), that the extrinsic scale subdivides into two categories, a per sonally oriented (Ep) and socially oriented (Es) extrinsicness, suggested that a revision of the I-E scales may be necessary. Description: Gorsuch and Venable (1983) (also see this volume) had already revised the Allport and Ross (1967) scales to make the religious orientation measure more amenable to individuals at all educational levels. A con firmatory factor analysis of the Age-Univer sal scale found the Ep and Es distinctions proffered by Kirkpatrick (1988). Thus, this scale is a revision of Gorsuch and Venable's 20-item "Age-Universal" I-E Scale with items designed to measure the intrinsic as well as both extrinsic categories. The result is a 14-item scale measured on the same 5 point "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (5) format used with the Age-Univer sal Scale. The authors report, however, that six or more intervals could be used with col lege students or "other relatively sophisti cated respondents." Eight items (3 reversed scored) tap the intrinsic orientation, whereas three items

each measure the personal and social cate gories of extrinsicness. In addition, the au thors attempted to identify single items to represent the constructs (arguing that there are times when single item scales are neces sary or preferred) . By identifying an item that correlated highly with its own factor and low correlations with the other factors, the authors identified three single items for each of the three orientations (no.12 for in trinsic, no.8 for extrinsic-personal, no.13 for extrinsic-social). The score of each scale is determined by summing its items' re sponses, resulting in a range of 8-40 for the I (Revised) scale and 3-15 for each E (Re vised) scale.

Practical Considerations: This paper-and pencil measure requires no special examiner skill to administer, score, or interpret.

Norms/Standardization: Participants in the original study were 771 students from secu lar and religious colleges in Southern Cali fornia. The mean and standard deviation for I (Revised) were 37.2 and 5.8. The mean and standard deviation for E (Revised) were 25.6 and 5.7.

Reliability: The reliability estimate for I (Revised) was .83. The relability estimates for Ep (Revised), Es (Revised), and Ep/Es (Revised) were .57, .58, and .65 respec tively. The reliability of the intrinsic scale is sufficient and is comparable to the reliabil ity estimate of the original Age Universal

/


Scale. Though the reliabilities of the extrin sic scales are low, partly due to the fewer number of items making up each extrinsic scale, th e authors are mindful that the brevity of the scales may make their use ap pealing for relatively large samples, thereby retaining the scales ' statistical power. The authors also suggest that additional items for each extrinsic scale would help increase the reliability of these scales and thus would be highly desirable.

Validity: This scale confirms the factors fo und by Kirkpatrick (1988) in his reanalysis of several studies using traditional religious orientation scales. No other direct measures of validity are reported. Location: Gorsuch, R. L. , & McPherson, S. E. (1989). In trinsic/extrinsic measurement: lIE-revised and sin gle-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3), 348- 354.

Subsequent Research: Giesbrecht, N. (1995). Parenting style and ado lescent religious commitment. Journal of Psychol ogy and Christianity, 14(3),228- 238 . Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1993) . Fundamentalism,

1.35

Christian orthodoxy, and intrinsic religious orienta tion as predictors of discriminatory attitudes. Jour nal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32(3 ), 256-268. Schaefer, C. A. , & Gorsuch, R. L. (1991). Psy chological adjustment and religiousness: The multi variate belief-motivation theory of religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(4), 448-461. Schaefer, C. A., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1992). Dimen sionality of religion : Belief and motivation as predic tors of behavior. Journal of Psychology and Chris tianity, 11(3), 244- 254.

References Allport, G. W. (1950). Th e individual and his re ligion. New York: MacMillan. Allport, G. w., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal re ligious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Person ality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443. Gorsuch, R. L. , & Venable, G. D. (1983). Devel opment of an "Age Universal" I-E scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 181-187. Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1989). A psychometric analy sis of the Allport-Ross and Feagin measures of in trinsic-extrinsic religious orientation. In D. O. Moberg and M. L. Lynn (Eds.), Research in the So cial Scientific Study of Religion (Vol. 1.) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Appendix Intrinsic/Extrinsic-Revised (IIE-R) Scale Following are the items included in the I/E-R scale. All items are scored as follows: 1 = I strongly disagree 2 = 1 tend to disagree 3 = I'm not sure

4 = I tend to agree 5 = I strongly agree

1. (I) 2. (Es) 3. (1)**

I enjoy reading about my religion. I go to church because it helps me to make friends. It doesn't much matter what 1 believe so long as I am good. 4. (1) It is important to me to spend time in private thought and prayer. 5. (I) I have often had a strong sense of God's presence. 6. (Ep) I pray mainly to gain relief and protection. 7. (I) I try hard to live all my life according to my religious beliefs. 8. (Ep)* What religion offers me most is comfort in times of trouble and sorrow. 9. (Ep) Prayer is for peace and happiness. 10. (1)** Although I am religious, I don't let it affect my daily life. 11. (Es) I go to church mostly to spend time with my friends. 12. (1) My whole approach to life is based on my religion.

-

--

--------

o

156


13. (Es)* I go to church mainly because I enjoy seeing people I know there. 14. (1)** Although I believe in my religion, many other things are more important in life.

* Single-item measures for that factor

** Reversed-scored

Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: lIE-revised and single-item scales, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 28(3), 348-354. Copyright © 1989 Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Reprinted with permission.

3.11

RELIGIOUS POSITION SCALE (King & Hunt, 1972a; Jennings, 1972)

Reviewed by Michael

Variable: The Religious Position Scale con sists of two portions: the dimensions of "Cognitive Salience" and "Extrinsic Reli gious Orientation." The Cognitive Salience portion evaluates the deeper significance of one's religion to his or her personal life. The Extrinsic Religious Orientation portion evaluates the extent to which one's religion serves a more superficially pragmatic or "means to an end" role. Description: Using an empirical rather than theoretical approach, King and Hunt pub lished a series of studies beginning in 1965 which sought to verify the multidimensional nature of religiosity and develop scales to describe its major dimensions (King & Hunt, 1990). Jennings (1972) used two of the scales refined by King and Hunt, and he labeled these The Religious Position Scale. Developing a pool of 130 items taken from previous studies or developed from three exploratory surv..£lYs, King and Hunt used intercorrelational, cluster, and factor analysis to explore and describe the multidi mensional nature of religiosity. Using factor and cluster analysis with a sample of 575 Methodist church members in the Dallas area, King (1967) initially proposed nine di mensions for the religious variable, one of which he characterized as an extrinsic/dog matism factor. King and Hunt (1969) then amended these findings after using item scale analysis on the same data. Inspired by the contributions of Allport, Glock and Lenski in the proposed theoretical dimen

J. Boivin

sions of religiosity, they then developed an expended item pool which they administered to four Protestant denominations in the Dal las-Fort Worth metropolitan area (King & Hunt, 1972a; King & Hunt, 1972b). The fac tor analysis they performed on these data re sulted in ten scales which defined different dimensions of religious behavior and congre gational involvement. Two of these factors were Salience/Cognition and Extrinsic Ori entation (Hunt & King, 1971), which com prised the items in the Religious Position Scale used by Jennings (1972). Jennings cited King and Hunt (1970) as his source for the Religious Position Scale. King and Hunt (1975) went on to adminis ter their complete set of scales to a nation wide sample of main-line Presbyterians, and obtained similar findings in terms of the major factors that emerged in their item pool. An overview of the evolution of their scales and the theoretical basis for their work is pre sented in King and Hunt (1990). The Religious Position Scale used by Jen nings (1972) contains a total of 12 items posed in 5-point Likert format statements (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Five of the items pertain to the Cognitive Salience subscale, and the remaining seven make up the Extrinsic Religious Orientation subscale. The difference between these two subscales corresponds closely to Allport and Ross' (1967) distinction between intrinsic and ex trinsic orientation. This instrument does not assess any par


ticular religious faith. All of the items are unidirectional, in that the more one agrees with each item, the higher the total score for that scale.

Practical Considerations: Presentation and scoring of the instrument are clear and straightforward. The instrument is brief and easily combined with other instruments for a more comprehensive set of measures. Items are phrased appropriately for a wide variety of Christian and non-Christian reli gIOUS groups. Norms/Standardization: Since King and Hunt were primarily interested in refining the major scales comprising religiosity by exam ining their factor structure, they do not report normative means or standard deviations for their data. The only published normative data (sample means and standard deviations) for this scale are found in Jennings (1972) sur vey of 364 students (61 % male, 39% female) at a metropolitan junior college in Dallas, Texas. The model age range of this sample was 20-24 years. Approximately 48% of the subjects were single, while 45% were mar ried. For the five items comprising the Cog nitive Salience portion of the Religious Posi tion Scale, the overall normative mean is 16.03 (SD = 4.01). Males had a mean of 15.74 (SD = 4.02) while the females had a mean of 16.48 (SD = 3.98). The overall mean for the seven items comprising the Extrinsic Religious Orientation portion of the Reli gious Position Scale was 18.29 (SD = 5.22). Normative scores for this factor were not presented by gender. Reliability: Jennings (1972) reported both mean inter-item correlation coefficients and Spearman-Brown modifications of split-half coefficients. Both coefficient values for the Extrinsic Religious Orientation subscale were relatively low (interitem: r = 0.15; Spearman-Brown: r = 0.51). The coefficients were somewhat stronger for the Cognitive Salience subscale (r =.56, r = 0.74). Given the low inter-item correlation and split-half coefficient values, the internal consistency

15

for the Extrinsic Religious Orientation sub scale should be viewed as suspect.

Validity: In terms of construct validity, Jen nings (1972) found no significant differences with respect to age or gender. The Cognitive Salience subscale was moderately related to the Scriptural Literalism Scale (Hogge & Friedman, 1967; r = 0.63) and Religious World View Scale (McLean, 1952; r = 0.65). The Extrinsic Religious Orientation subscale was less strongly related to each scale re spectively (r = 0.35; r = 0.31). Location: Jennings, F. L. (1972). A note on the reliability of several belief scales. journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 157-164. King, M. B., & Hunt, R. A. (1975). Measuring the religious variable: National replication. journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14, 13-22.

Subsequent Research: None found. References Allport, G., & Ross, J. (1967) . Personal religious orientation and prejudice. journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443. Hogge, J., & Friedman, S. T. (1967). The Scrip tural Literalism Scale: A preliminary report. journal of Psychology, 66, 275-279. Hunt, R. A., & King, M. B. (1971). The intrinsic extrinsic concept: A review and evaluation. journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 10, 339-356. King, M. (1967). Measuring the religious vari able: Nine proposed dimensions. journalfor the Sci entific Study of Religion, 6, 173-190. King, M. B., & Hunt, R. A. (1969). Measuring the religious variable: Amended findings. journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 8, 321-323. King, M. & Hunt, R. A. (1970). Religion, preju dice and cognitive style. Unpublished paper. King, M. B., & Hunt, R. A. (1972a). Measuring the religious variable: Replication. journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 240-25l. King, M. B., & Hunt, R. A. (1972b). Measuring religious dimensions: Studies of congregational in volvement. Studies in Social Science, no. 1. Dallas: Southern Methodist University. King, M. B., & Hunt, R. A. (1990). Measuring the religious variable: Final comment. journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 531-535. McLean, M. (1952). Religious world views. Mo tive, 12, 22-26.

o

MEASU RES OF RELIGIOSITY

158

Appendix Religious Position Scale Please answer the following statements by circling the number that most accurately describes your beliefs based on the choices provided below. I = strongly agree 2 = moderately agree 3 = neutral

4 = moderately disagree

5 = strongly disagree

1. Cognitive Salience 2

3

4

5

2. I frequently feel very close to God in prayer, during public worship, or at important

moments in my daily life.

2

3

4

5

3. I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life.

2

3

4

5

1. I try hard to grow in understanding of what it

means to live as a child of God.

4. My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life.

1

2

3

4

5

5. Religion is especially important to me because it answers many questions about the meaning

of life.

1

2

3

4

5

J

II. Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scale l. What religion offers me most is comfort when

2

3

4

5

sorrows and misfortune strike.

2. The purpose of prayer is to secure a happy and peaceful life.

1

2

3

4

5

3. It is part of one's patriotic duty to worship in the church of his choice.

1

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

4. Religion helps to keep my life balanced and steady in exactly the same way as my citizen ship, friendsfilps, and other memberships do.

5. One reason for my being a church member is that such membership helps to establish a

person in the community.

1

2

3

4

5

6. The church is most important as a place to formulate good social relationships.

1

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

7. Church membership has helped me to meet the right kind of people.

Jennings, F. L. (1972). A note on the reliability of se veral belief scales. Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion, 11. 157-164. Copyright © 1972 Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Reprinted with per mISSIOn.

Chapter 4

Scales of Religious Development Like many constructs in psychology, religious experience is not static; it changes over time. In response, psychologists of religion have established a number of indices de signed to assess religious development. Many people assume that religious development occurs after adolescence. While this may be true with regard to basic religious identity (e. g., most reli gious "conversions" occur by adolescence), people often report religious or spiritual "growth" throughout adulthood. Such growth may include, for example, new religious experiences, new understandings of already existing religious beliefs or experi ences, a greater sense of purpose or meaning in life, or a greater perceived awareness of divine involvement in everyday life. There is a surprising dearth of scales that specifically measure faith development dur ing the formative years, despite a rather extensive literature investigating religious de velopment in children and adolescents. Granted, many of the scales in this volume use adolescents (or even children in a few cases) as part of the original sample to collect nor mative data. Oftentimes, of course, these are convenience samples of high school or col lege students or the studies are designed to test whether an existing measure can be used with a younger population. However, the research specifically designed to measure reli gious development in children and adolescents has generally shunned the use of the kind of scales reviewed in this volume, perhaps for good reason. After all, establishing valid measures of religion in a language understandable to chil dren is not a simple task. Fur thermore, children are often a more captive audience for other measurement techniques, such as informal interviews, picture drawing, or nonparticipant observation. The concept of God literature, for example, has frequently relied on picture drawing (often with sub sequent explanation) to investigate the child's perception of the divine. The eight assessment tools reviewed in this chapter provide a variety of techniques for measuring religiou§.and faith development. Several of the scales provide a self-report in ventory of religious or spiritual maturity. Five of these scales relate specifically to Chris tian maturity: Alter's Christian Experience Inventory (4.1), the Barnes et al. Faith De velopment Scale (4.3) based on James Fowler's theory of faith development, Benson and colleagues' Faith Maturity Scale (4.4), Malony's Religious Status Inventory (4.7), and Ellison's Spirituality Maturity Index (4.8). In contrast, Marthai's Religious Index of Ma turing Survey (4.5) pertains to religion in general and is not specific to any particular re ligious tradition. The other two measures included in this chapter are interview tools. The first tool is the Fowler 's Faith Development Interview Guide (4.2), which is not restricted to Chris tianity. The other interview tool, Malony's Religious Status Interview (4.6), was de signed specifically to assess Christian maturity.

159

16 0


4.1

CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE INVENTORY (Alter, 1986, 1989)

Reviewed by John D. Scanish and Mark R. McMinn

Variable: The Christian Experience Inven tory (CEI) measures believing adults' expe rience of their ongoing relationship with God as Person, that is, their daily "inner" experience of being in a divinely initiated, interactive relationship that affects their at titudes and values (Alter, 1986). Five sub scales yield scores for one's experience of (1 ) growth in faith, (2) trust in God, (3) cost of faith, (4) concern for others, and (5) justi fication by faith. Description: The CEI is a brief, 24-item scale based on the author's three-stage model of religious development (see Alter, 1986; Alter, 1994). Development through these three stages is believed to be facilitated by an individual's interaction with God. This model assumes that religious devel opment is a multifaceted phenomenon that begins with an individual's conscious choice to enter into religious commitment. It subsequently influences a person's atti tudes and values about self, others, and God. It is not a natural chronological devel opment because it requires a personal com mitment to interact with God. Alter (1989) suggests that the human component of Christian experience can be observed, de scribed, and to some extent measured. Originally composed of 106 "faith state ments," the process used to establish the CEl's reliability and to develop usable sub scales led to the elimination of all but 21 items. A few years later, three "action state ments" were added to the end of the inven tory; no statistical procedures have been ap plied to these items. All 24 items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale, "very much like me" (3 poi nts), "somewhat like me" (2 points), "not much like me" (1 point), and "definitely not like me" (0 points). Three to six items load on each of the five subscales mentioned above. The CEI is cored by adding together a participant's points in each of these five areas. A partici pant is then said to have either a "modest,"

"medium," or "strong" level experience of God as person in that area (M. G. Alter, per sonal communication, September 20, 1995). The five subscales were determined through factor analysis and identified as Ex perience of Growth in Faith (items 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 22), Experience of Trust in God (items 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18), Experience of Cost of Faith (items 4, 10, 20, 23), Experi ence of Concern for Others (items 6, 16, 19, 21 , 24), and Experience of Justification by Faith (items 1,3, 14). Given the broad foun dation of moral development and values ori entation on which the CEI is based, it seems reasonable to conclude that these five fac tors would contribute to a person's experi ence of an ongoing relationship with God as person. It seems premature, however, to conclude that these five factors are the only, or the best, factors by which to measure such a phenomenon. The small number of items loading onto each factor likewise sug gest that any analyses based on an individ ual participant's scores should remain tenta tive.

Practical Considerations: This pencil-and paper inventory requires no special exam iner skill to administer, score, or interpret. Directions for scoring are available from the author. Participants usually complete it in 10 to 15 minutes, and it can be used with in dividuals, groups, or entire churches. The language used is specifically and intention ally religious, "too Christian" for some and "not Christian enough" for others in main line Protestant and Roman Catholic tradi tions (Alter, 1989).

Norms/Standardization: The normative sample was composed of 125 volunteer re spondents from two large Presbyterian churches in California. It was a highly edu cated sample, with no respondents having less than three years of high school and two thirds of them having either college or grad uate-level degrees.

--------

Scales of Religious Developmen t

Reliability: Test-retest reliability data were collected from 20 volunteers from an Oak land (CA) church and 17 assorted seminari ans. Intervals ranged from two weeks to three months. Pearson product moment cor relations ranged from .66 for the Justifica tion by Faith scale to .91 for the Trust in God scale. Validity : The author contacted seven reli gious professionals (four Catholic and three Protestant) who were interested in and in volved with persons trying to grow in their faith. Each of these seven was asked to give . the CEI to several people and to identify the respondents as "beginning," "intermediate," or "advanced" in their religious maturity. Response patterns were then compared to those obtained from a group of seminarians and from two church groups. Though spe cific comparisons are not reported, the au thor reports that higher scores on CEI sub scales, particularly on the first, second, and fourth subscales, indicate higher levels of Christian maturity.

16 1

Location: Alter, M.G. (1986). A phenomenology of Chris tian religiou s maturity. Pastoral Psychology, 34, 15 1-160. Alter, M.G. (1989). An empirical study of Chris tian religious maturity: Its implications for parish ministry. Pastoral Psychology, 37, 153-160.

The scale itself is not published in either ar ticle.

Recent Research: Muse, I.S ., Estadt, B.K. , Greer, I.M., & Che ston, S. (1994). Are religiously integrated therapists more empathic? The Journal of Pastoral Care, 48, 14- 23 .

References Alter, M.G. (1986). A phenomenology of Chris tian religious maturity. Pastoral Psychology , 34, 151- 160. Alter, M.G. (1989). An empirical study of Chris tian religious maturity: Its implications for parish ministry. Pastoral Psychology, 37, 153-160. Alter, M. G. (1994). Resurrection psychology: An understanding of human personality based on the life and teachings of Jesus. Chicago: Loyola University Press.

Appendix Christian Experience Inventory (24) The following items are designed to help us understand how people experience faith in their lives. The statements vary widely, and not all will apply to you and to your experience. Some may even feel offensive to you. That is expected . Simply mark them as seems correct for your experience of faith and continue on. Please answer spontaneously without pausing to ponder anyone item. Most participants report that the questions took them about 10 to 15 minutes to complete. In the blank to t~le left of each statement, circle 3 if the statement is very much like you and your experience; circle 2 if the statement is somewhat like you and your experience; cir cle 1 if the statement is not much like you and your experience; circle 0 if the statement is definitely not like you and your experience.

3-2- 1-01. My imperfections don't bother me as much as they used to because God's ac ceptance of me is more important even though it's hard to accept. 3-2-1-02. I've found again and again that when I live in the Spirit of the Gospels prob lems don't overwhelm me and life is meaningful. 3-2-1-0 3. I am realizing that I have areas of "light and darkness," or good and evil, in my life, but God ' s transforming power is of greater importance.

162


3-2- 1-04. I feel that I am doing something wrong in my prayer life when I can't feel God's closeness. 3-2-1-0 5. The goodness and mercy of God have begun to come alive for me.

3-2-1-06. If I take Jesus' teachings seriously, it makes good sense to feel concern for

fl ood and disaster victims.

3-2-1-0 7. It seems that the Spirit of God pushes me into new cycles of learning and

growth.

3-2-1-0 8. In my relationship with God, I sometimes feel like talking a lot and some

times very little, but I always know God is there.

3- 2-1-09. I sense that God has always been in my life.

3-2-1-0 10. Because of my commitment to God, I am sometimes called to say hard

things in spite of my reluctance.

3-2-1-0 11. I feel I know or will know what God wants our relationship to become.

3-2-1-0 12. I am learning to trust my ongoing relationship with God.

3-2-1-0 13. Even amid confusion and turmoil I find comfortable peacefulness in God's

love.

3- 2- 1-0 14. The Christian understanding th at I will never be perfect is a relief.

3-2-1-0 15. I have no doubt that I continue to be held in God's hand.

3-2-1-0 16. My faith leads me to an active concern for people and for the whole living

world.

3-2-1-0 17. In times of greatest distress, I am most deeply aware of God' s faithfulness.

3-2-1-0 18. Whatever happens, I will find that the Spirit of God moves in my life.

3-2- 1-0 19. To be serious about Christian values means that I take an active interest in

justice for all people.

3-2- 1 -0 20. I feel troubled when I realize how much I participate in a sinful society.

3-2-1-021. My Christian faith pervades my entire life.

3-2-1- 0 22. Within the past two years, I have taken a class or workshop or participated

in some other activity which directly infl uences my faith development.

3- 2 -1-023 . Within the past year I have felt it necessary to speak out on some issue be

cause of my faith.

3-2-1-0 24. Because of my faith, I participate practically, financially, politically or

prayerfully in helping people less fortunate than I am. Reprinted with permission by author.

Scales of Religious Development

163

4.2

FAITH DEVELOPMENT INTERVIEW GUIDE (Fowler, 1981)

Reviewed by Christopher T. Burris

Variable: The Faith Development Interview Guide provides a basic outline for a semidi rective interview, the purpose of which is to determine an individual's global level of faith development. In this context, the term "faith" refers to the process by which an in dividual constructs a personal framework for making the world coherent and mean ingful. This process-oriented conceptualiza tion thus does not focus on the framework's content per se but rather on how its various components are assembled and maintained. As such, explicitly religious frameworks are subsumed by, but not exhaustive of, the faith domain .

Description: In the tradition of structural devel opmental theorists such a s Piaget, K ohlberg , and Erikson, Fowler's (1981) faith development theory postulates that an individual's maturation with respect to tack ling the universal human task of meaning construction is subject to identifiable stages that are " invariant, sequential, and hierar chical" in nature (Fowler, 1996, p. 169). T hat is, although a given individual will not necessarily progress through all the stages of faith , he or she will go through them in a specified order, never making the transition to a "higher" stage before necessary earlier stages are experienced. Throughout this process, previous stages are assimilated but not obliterated. Fowler postulated seven stages of faith, although his assessment approach is de signed to tap only six. Thus, " Primal Faith"-or what Fowler (1994) later refers to as "Undifferentiated Faith"-defined in term's of an infant sense of basic trust and immediate sensory experience, remains but an inferred starting point in his approach. In Stage 1, or Intuitive-Projective Faith, the child-aided by newly acquired language and a blossoming imagination-begins to grasp the possibilities inherent in symbols, develops a rudimentary self-awareness, and is powerfully affected by stories and experi-

ences with caregivers . In Stage 2 , or Mythic-Literal Faith , the engrossment with stories-predominantly those endorsed by one's culture-continues; although the child' s capacity to distinguish between fan tasy and reality improves, story learning and telling remain rather concrete, as is his or her adherence to rules (moral and other wi se). In Stage 3, or Synthetic-Conventional Faith, interpersonal awareness is suffi ciently developed to ensure a central influ ential role of peers, significant others, and authority figures; the (adolescent or older) individual is now capable of assuming an ideology which becomes the basis for val ues and ethics, although the ideology is more inherited (from one's social surround) than created (through personal reflection). Stage 4, or Individuative-Reflective Faith, is typified by an emergent awareness of incon sistencies inherent in one's inherited world view as it is subjected to critical analysis; rationality and self-sufficiency are en shrined as reference groups and their shared symbols are dethroned. The central theme of Stage 5, Conjunctive Faith (or Paradoxical Consolidative Faith in Fowler, 1994), might be characterized as reconciliation : Instead of dealing with the tension inherent in para dox by compartmentalization as in Stage 4, boundaries-both in trapersonal and inter personal-are dissolved as much as possible and prior, seemingly disparate, themes are allowed to intermix freely ; symbols are em braced anew, with a concurrent appreciation of their validity and incompleteness . Fi nally, in the "Universalizing Faith" of Stage 6, the reconciliation begun in Stage 5 is per fected sufficiently that the individual's vi sion of the interconnectedness of self, oth ers, and planet is translated into a contagious call for transformation of social conditions, a role roughly corresponding to the Eastern and Western concepts of "bod hisattva" and "prophet," respectively. The Faith Development Interview Guide

164

MEASURES OF R E LIGIOSITY

presented herein (from Fowler, 1981) should be regarded as just that: a guide, sample, or starting point. It is highly unlikely that me chanical administration of the questions con tained therein can yield information of suffi cient quantity or quality to determine the individual's level of faith development with any confidence. Rather, a successful inter view likely requires considerable clinical acumen, as well as familiarity with the the ory and the cultural context (see Snarey, 1991) in order to know when and how to di rect the interviewee, and attend to the under lying meanings in his or her responses. Scoring of faith development interviews is described in detail in Moseley, Jarvis, and Fowler (1993; also see Fowler, 1981, pp. 217-268,307-310, for an annotated exam ple and brief overview). Only an oversimpli fied sketch can be offered in this volume. In general, taped interviews are transcribed and then inspected for themes, both in terms of specific contents and underlying process(es). More specificall y, a stage score is assigned to an interviewee for each of seven different aspects of faith (see Fowler, 1981, pp. 244-245, for a tabular summary) . Form of logic refers to the characteristic decision rules used in reasoning about issues of faith and meaning. Perspective taking involves the individual's relative capacity for seeing himself or herself from the standpoint of ei ther an interpersonal other cr a third party. Form of moral judgment refers to one's foundation for ethics. Bounds of social awareness are concerned with an individ ual's degree of incorporation of diverse ex periences into the process of meaning con struction. Locus of authority refers to one's primary source of guidance and/or approval. Form of world coherence is concerned with an individual's degree of awareness of the subjectivity and internal consistency of his/her assumptions. Finally, symbolic func tioning focuses on the depth and malleability of meaning(s) associated with an individ ual's core symbols. An individual's scores on the seven aspects of faith are then aver aged to yield a global faith development stage score ranging from 1 to 6, including half-stage or transitional scores, e.g., 4/5.

Practical Considerations: Practical consid erations associated with administration and scoring of the Faith Development Interview Guide should not be taken lightly. As noted above, a considerable degree of clinical acu men and interviewing skill, along with fa miliarity with faith development theory, is needed to conduct each interview. Fowler (1994) estimated that 1-3 hours of contact time are required for each interview, with the average being somewhat lower for chil dren. Although optional, transcription of each taped interview is strongly recom mended. Scoring requires thorough famil iarity with the scoring manual (Moseley et aI., 1993); moreover, Fowler (1981) recom mends at least three reads of a given tran script before assigning scores. To ensure ac curacy and provide an index of interrater reliability, a co-rater is also required. Thus, research involving the Faith Development Interview Guide should be planned with the utmost care, for it is both time and labor in tensive (see also "Validity").

Norms/Standardization : Fowler's (1981) original sample consisted of 359 predomi nantly White women and men, ages ranging from 4 to 84. Nearly half were Protestant and slightly more than one-third were Catholic, with the balance comprised of Jewish and "other" respondents. Because faith stages are assumed to correspond-al beit roughly-with chronological age, age stage distributions are discussed under "Va lidity" below.

Reliability: Snarey (1991) reported an inter rater reliability of .88, which he claimed to be fairly typical. He also reported an inter nal consistency (based on the seven aspects of faith scores) of .93, which he admitted may be inflated somewhat by the raters' de sire to appear self-consistent. This caution notwithstanding, interrater reliability and internal consistency taken together are im pressive, given the relative complexity of the scoring procedure.

Validity: Fair empirical support exists for the validity of the Faith Development Interview Guide. In Fowler's (1981) original sample,


an overall positive, if weak, relationship be tween age and faith stage was observed. Modal stages for the age groups represented in the sample were: 1 for 0-6 years; 2 for 7-12 years; 3 for 13-20 years; 4 for 21-30 years; 3 for 31-40 years; 4 for 41-50 years; 3 for 51-60 years and 4 for 61 + years. More over, no Stage 5 individuals occurred below the 31-40 age group. Overall, these data are consistent with Fowler's contention that ad vancing age is a necessary but not sufficient condition for advanced faith stage develop ment. At the same time, it must be remem bered that the data are cross-sectional and are thus not capable of ruling out possible cohort effects. Fowler (1994) reported that a five-year longitudinal study was underway in the early 1990s; thus, it remains to be seen whether strong support for the "invariant se quence" hypothesis of faith development theory is supported. Snarey's (1991) study made several im portant contributions to the validity of faith development constructs and the related as sessment procedure. First, the distribution of faith stage scores in his sample of 60 pre domin antly atheistic current or former dwellers in an Israeli kibbutz was similar to that of a comparable theistic sample, suggest ing that the faith development conceptual scheme is not biased in favor of traditional (theistic) religion. Second, faith stage scores were moderately positively correlated with both moral and ego development scores, sug gesting that both of the latter are related to, but not redundant with, the former. More over, faith stage was positively correlated with the presence of subtle versus obvious symbols of Jewish identity in the intervie wees' dwellings, consistent with Fowler's (1 98 1) postulation that symbol systems are employed in a more flexible, abstract manner at higher levels of faith development. Snarey (1991) also found the average faith stage of former kibbutz dwellers who moved to Israeli cities to be higher (4.2) than the average among current kibbutz dwellers (3 .8); former kibbutz dwellers who moved to North American cities averaged in between these two groups (4.0) and did not significantly differ from either. Snarey in

165

terpreted this finding as supportive of the construct validity of the faith development assessment approach, suggesting that the heterogeneous, cosmopolitan environment of Israeli cities provided exposure to diver sity-essential fodder for advanced faith de velopment- that was less salient in the more homogeneous environment of the kib butz. This finding, in combination with ob served positive correlations between faith stage scores and variables such as level of education and social class, raises concerns about possible intellectualist and classist bi ases inherent in the faith development framework, however (see Leak & Randall, 1995). That faith development theory is sub ject to these sorts of criticisms is not unique. Indeed, this seems to be an inevitable out come of positing an invariant series of stages culminating in an idealized endpoint (see Wulff, 1997, pp. 401-405, for a review of conceptual criticisms): Moral develop ment theory has been similarly criticized. It remains to be seen whether faith develop ment theory can withstand the ideological criticisms of this sort it has provoked.

Location: Fowler, J. W (198 1). Stages of faith: The psy chology of human development and the quest for meaning. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Recent Research: Barnes, M., Doyle, D., & Johnson, B. (J 989). The formation of a Fowler scale: An empirical as sessment among Catholics. Review of Religious Re search, 30, 412-420. Green, C. W , & Hoffman, C. L. (1989). Stages of faith and perceptions of similar and dissimilar others. Review of Religious Research, 30, 246-254. Leak, G. K., & Randall, B. A. (1995). Clarifica tion of the link between ri ght-wing authoritarianism and religiousness: The role of religious maturity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34, 245-252. Snarey, J. (199 1). Faith development, moral de velopment, and nontheistic Judaism: A construct validity study. In W. M. Kurtines and J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbok of moral behavior and develop ment, Volume 2: Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Comment: There is little question that faith oJ,) ~o development theory is an exceedingly rich, if ~r')


166

complex and value-laden, theoretical frame work. One can present hardly more than a caricature of it in the space allotted herein. Ironically, its greatest strength-attention to individuals' meaning-making life journeys in narrative detail-is its greatest weakness, for the investment required has apparently re sulted in the empirical investigation of faith development lagging far behind armchair discussion. Quickening the empirical pace is thus a vital task for future researchers. References Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages offaith: The psy chology of human development and the quest for meaning. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Fowler, J. W. (1994). Moral stages and the de velopment of faith. In W. Pupa (Ed. ), Moral Devel opment, Volume 2: Fundamental research in moral development (pp. 130-160). New York: Garland. Fowler, J. W. (1996). Pluralism and oneness in religious experience: William James, faith-develop ment theory, and clinical practice. In E. P. Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 165-186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Moseley, R. , Jarvis, D., & Fowler, J. W. (1993). 1993 Manual for faith development research. (Rev. Karen B. DeNicola.) Atlanta, GA: Center for Re search in Faith and Moral Development, Emory University. Wulff, D. M. (1997). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary. New York: Wiley.

Appendix Faith Development Interview Guide Part I: Life Review

1. Factual Data: Date and place of birth? Number and ages of siblings? Occupation of pro viding parent or parents? Ethnic, racial, and religious identifications? Characterization of social class-family of origin and now? 2. Divide life into chapters: (major) segments created by changes or experiences-"turning points" or general circumstances. 3. In order for me to understand the flow or movement in your life and your way of feeling and thinking about it, what other persons and experiences would be important for me to know about? 4. Thinking about yourself at present: What gives your life meaning? What makes life worth living for you? Part II: Life-Shaping Experiences and Relationships l. At present, what re-Jationships seem most important for your life? (E.g., intimate, famil ial, or work relationships.)

2. You did/did not mention your father in your mentioning of significant relationships. When you think of your father as he was during the time you were a child, what stands out? What was his work? What were his special interests? Was he a religious person? Explain. When you think of your mother.. . [same questions as previous]? Have your perceptions of your parents changed since you were a child? How? 3. Are there other persons who at earlier times or in the present have been significant in the shaping of your outlook on life? 4. Have you experienced losses, crises or suffering that have changed or "colored" your life in special ways?


167

5. Have you had moments of joy, ecstasy, peak experience, or breakthrough that have shaped or changed your life? (e.g., in nature, in sexual experience or in the presence of inspiring beauty or communication?) 6. What were the taboos in your early life? How have you lived with or out of those taboos? Can you indicate how the taboos in your life have changed? What are the taboos now? 7. What experiences have affirmed your sense of meaning in life? What experiences have shaken or disturbed your sense of meaning?

Part III: Present Values and Commitments 1. Can you describe the beliefs and values or attitudes that are most important in guiding your own life? 2. What is the purpose of human life? 3. Do you feel that some approaches to life are more "true" or right than others? Are there some beliefs that all or most people ought to hold and act on? 4 . Are there symbols or images or rituals that are important to you? 5. What relationships or groups are most important as support for your values and beliefs? 6. You have described some beliefs and values that have become important to you. How important are they? In what ways do these beliefs and values find expression in your life? Can you give some specific examples of how and when they have had effect? (e.g., times of crisis, decisions, groups affiliated with, causes invested in, risks and costs of commitment.) 7. When you have an important decision to make regarding your life, how do you go about deciding? Example? 8. Is there a "plan" for human lives? Are we-individually or as a species-determined or affected in our lives by power beyond human control? 9. When life seems most discouraging and hopeless, what holds you up or renews your hope? Example? 10. When you think about the future, what makes you feel most anxious or uneasy (for your self and those you love; for society or institutions; for the world)? 11. What does death mean to you? What becomes of us when we die? 12. Why do some persons and groups suffer more than others? 13. Some people believe that we will always have poor people among us, and that in general life rewards people according to their efforts. What are your feelings about this? 14. Do you feel that human life on this planet will go on indefinitely, or do you think it is about to end?

Part IV' Religion 1. Do you have or have you had important religious experiences? 2. What feelings do you have when you think about God? 3. Do you consider yourself a religious person? 4. If you pray, what do you feel is going on when you pray? 5. Do you feel that your religious outlook is "true"? In what sense? Are religious traditions

other than your own "true"?

168


6. What is sin (or sins)? How have your feelings about this changed? How did you feel or think about sin as a child, an adolescent, and so on? 7. Some people believe that without religion morality breaks down. What do you feel abom this? 8. Where do you feel that you are changing, growing, struggling or wrestling with doubt in your life at the present time? Where is your growing edge? 9. What is your image (or idea) of mature faith? "Faith Development Interview Guide" from Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning by James W. Fowler. Copyright © 1981 by James W. Fowler. Reprinted by permis sion of HarperCollins Pu blishers, Inc.

4.3

FAITH DEVELOPMENT SCALE (Barnes, Doyle & Johnson, 1989)

Reviewed by Randie L. Timpe

Variable: James Fowler's Faith Develop ment Scale is based on (1981, 1991a, 1991 b) his theory of faith development that parallels Erik Erikson's psycho-social, Jean Piaget's cognitive, and Lawrence Kohl berg's moral developmental theories. Fow ler's faith development theory builds on the foundations set by cognitive and moral de velopment, so that Fowler's proposition is an extension and elaboration of Piaget and Kohlberg's developmental stage theories. Fowler (1981) advanced the concept that in dividuals may hold the same beliefs in dif ferent ways, some in very literal ways and others in a very symbolic, abstract fashion. He proposed that the most primitive style was the projective-intuitive faith of a little child. In the second stage, mythical-literal fa ith, the person accepts uncritically and lit erally the traditional faith stories. In the third stage, synthetic-conventional faith, the individual aligns more explicitly with group religiosity and lives a more complex story. The fourth stage, individuative-reflective, employs a more abstract and individually reasoned universal form of faith. Individu als exhibiting the fifth stage, the conjunctive stage, recognize the symbolic nature of truth. Only a few individuals achieve uni versalizing faith in which motivation and vision so focus on justice and the needs of others that the self is decentered.

Description: Fowler (1981) developed hi stages of faith through an interview meth od ology. He failed to develop a quick, simple. reliable, and valid measure to assess one' stage of faith development. Barnes, Doyle and Johnson (1989) sought to develop an a sessment instrument for faith development like that developed by Rest (1979, 1986) for Kohlberg's (1976) moral development the ory. But rather than define faith in a stage orientation, Barnes, Doyle and Johnson (1 989) described faith in terms of style . The individual's score is determined by the nine sets of paired items . Each item repre sents a faith "style" indicative of one of Fowler's faith stages. Practical Considerations : The scale is an easy-to-administer paper and pencil test, but it could be given orally. The items require that the respondent has given some logical reflection to religion. The scale seems inap propriate for individuals who have given lit tle cognitive reflection to their participation in religion; agnostics, children, and individ uals who are intellectually challenged could not be anticipated as providing reliable , valid self-assessments. Individuals whose religious experience is primarily affectively oriented might challenge the test's cogniti e orientation. The scale may not effectively assess a behavioral orientation to religion.


169

The items were originally developed for a Catholic audience, but the item content re lates to adults from the mainstream Catholi cism and Protestantism. Using the scale with religious extremists may result in data of questionable utility. Individuals from a rigid, right-winged fundamentalist cult or from a left-winged liberal society may react adversely to item content rather than reveal their thinking preference. The God and Christ language renders the scale inappro priate for a Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, or even non-western religious devotee. That is, some respondents might reject the theologi cal tenets assumed in the scale's construc tion.

2 and 3 consistently preferred the more literal statement of belief, while those iden tified by the scale as faith style 4 and 5 consistently preferred the symbolic state ments. Goldsmith and Bayless (1991) reported a moderate correlation between the Fowler Faith Scale and Rest's Defining Issues Test, as would be anticipated by Kohlberg's and Fowler's theories. They also found that indi viduals with a more intrinsic orientation to religion had a more symbolic expression of faith. Those of higher faith stages were less dogmatic. Similar results were reported in a later study (Goldsmith, Bayless, & Hines, 1992).

Norms/Standardization: Barnes, Doyle and Johnson (1989) tested the items on three groups of individuals who, they reasoned, should be different in their style of faith: members of a prayer group, parishioners from a Catholic congregation in Dayton, OH, and a group of college/seminary reli gious studies teachers and theologians. The total usable sample was 576. They sug gested that this grouping should differenti ate individuals along a continuum from lit eral faith to symbolic faith. They found that a discriminant analysis predicted member ship well in the norming groups (94% cor rect prediction in the prayer group, 6 1% in the parish group, and 81% in the college/ seminary faculty group).

Location:

Reliability: No findings are reported that suggest that the scale developers or those using it in subsequent research addressed the issue of reliability.

Barnes, M., Doyle, D., & Johnson, B. (1989). The formulation of a Fowler Scale: An empirical assessment among Catholics. Review of Religious Research, 30(4), 412-420. Fowler, J. (1981). Stages offaith: The psychol ogy of human development and the quest for faith. San Franciso: Harper and Row. Fowler, J. (1991a). The vocation of faith devel opment theory. In J. W. Fowler, K. E. Nipkow, and F. Schweitzer (Eds.), Stages of faith and religious development: Implications for church, education, and society. New York: Crossroad Publishing Com pany. Fowler, J. (1991b). Weaving the new creation: Stages of faith and the public church. San Fran cisco: Harper & Row. Goldsmith, W. M., & Bayless, S. L. (1991, Au gust). Male and female seminarians' personality

Validity: Barnes, Doyle and Johnson (1989) sought to establish concurrent validity by predicting membership in varying groups of faith style. That discriminant analysis study was described earlier. They also developed a survey of beliefs that varied along the literal-symbolic dimension. The survey of religious beliefs was comprised of twenty pairs of statements about essential church doctrine. One statement in each pair was literal, while the other was symbolic in form. Individuals identified as faith style

Barnes, M., Doyle, D., & Johnson, B. (1989). The formulation of a Fowler Scale: An empirical assessment among Catholics. Review of Religious Research, 30(4), 412-420.

Subsequent Research: Goldsmith, W. M., & Bayless, S. L. (1991, Au gust). Male and female seminarians' personality and moral reasoning: Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Paper presented to the American Psychologi cal Association, San Francisco, CA. Goldsmith, W. M., Bayless, S. L., & Hynes, V. J. (1992, August). Faith development, moral develop ment and values. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

References


170

and moral reasoning: Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Paper presented to the American Psychologi cal Association, San Francisco, CA. Goldsmith, W. M., Bayless, S. L., & Hynes. V. J. (1992. August). Faith development. moral develop ment and values. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association, Washington. DC. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moraliza tion: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T.

Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Rest. J. R. (1979). The Defining Issues Test. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rest, J. R. (1986). Manual for the Defining Is sues Test: An objective test of moral development (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Min nesota Press .

Appendix Instrument

(2)* (3)

1.

(2) (4)

2.

(2)

3.

A.

B. A.

B. A.

(5)

B.

(3) 4.

A.

(4)

B.

(3) (5)

5.

(4) (5)

6.

(3) (4)

7.

(3)

8.

B.

(5)

A.

B. A.

B. A.

B.

(5) (4)

A.

9.

A.

B.

Those who do what God wants are given special rewards. God grants comfort and strength to those who are loyal and faithful. God can do whatever God wants without any particular reason. It is important to try to make sense out of how God acts and why. A good way to relate to God is to do what God wants, so that God will help you in return. It is best to think of God as utterly and freely giving. Following Christ with loving devotion is more important than having a thorough and correct understanding of true doctrine. It is important to reflect on one's beliefs to make them reasonable and logically coherent. True followers of Christ will often find themselves rejected by the world. Most people in the world are doing their best to live decent lives. God's revealed truth is meant for all people everywhere. No set of religious beliefs is the whole and final truth for everyone. It is important to follow the leaders to whom God has entrusted his church. Religious leaders must respect the need for reasonableness, consistency, and coherence in their interpretation of doctrines. It is often hard to understand why people are disloyal to their family and religion. People have to make their own best choices about religion, even if it means following new ways.

The moral teachings of the church are objectively valid for all people, even though many do not realize this. Love of neighbor requires being open to new ideas and values.

*The number in parentheses indicates the Fowler stage ("style" here) that the statement is intended to identify. The respondents were asked to express a preference for one of the two statements on each of the nine items.


17 1

Barnes, M., Doyle, D., & Johnson, B. (1989). The formulation of a Fowler Scale: An empirical assess ment among Catholics. Review of Religious Research, 30(4), 412-420. Copyright © 1989 Review of Reli gious Research. Reprinted with permission.

4.4

FAITH MATURITY SCALE (Benson, Donahue, & Erickson, 1993)

Reviewed by Theresa C. Tisdale

Variable: The Faith Maturity Scale (FMS) is designed to measure "the degree to which a person embodies the priorities, commit ments, and perspectives characteristic of vi brant and life transforming faith, as these have been understood in 'mainline' Protes tant traditions" (p.3). This definition focuses intentionally on values and behavioral mani festations or indicators of faith rather than exclusively on an assent to particular reli gious beliefs or tenets. The scale is appropri ate for use with both adolescents and adults. Description: The Faith Maturity Scale (FMS) was developed as part of The Na tional Study of Protestant Congregations (NSPC), which had as its goal the assess ment of personal faith, denominational loy alty, and thei r determinants (Benson & Eklin, 1990). This study involved 11,000 adolescents and adults from six Protestant denominations: (a) Christian Church, Disci ples of Christ (CC), (b) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), (c) Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. (PCUSA), (d) United Church of Christ (UCC); (e) United Methodist Church (UMC), and (f) Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Working in con junction with three advisory panels com pri sing seminary scholars, denominational experts, and clergy from diverse racial and

ethnic backgrounds, the Search Institute of Minneapolis developed the scale utilizing a criterion-based approach. Development was guided by eight considerations: (a) faith ma turi ty occurs along a continuum; (b) there are multiple core dimensions of faith matu rity; (c) faith maturity involves both one's personal relationship with God (vertical faith), as well as one's relationship with oth ers and behavioral manifestations of faith (horizontal faith); (d) the scale should have

heuristic value; (e) the length of the instru ment and its response format should make it useful; (f) the scale should minimize eco nomic, educational, and racial-ethnic speci ficity; (g) the indicators of faith maturity should not presume an institutional attach ment or involvement; and (h) denomina tional specificity should be minimized. Utilizing a thorough and systematic process, the investigators generated the FMS in a three-stage process which con sisted of (a) naming the core dimensions, (b) defining faith-maturity indicators, and (c) developing survey items. The result of their work is a 38-item, 7-point Likert scale that yields a global faith-maturity score with a potential range of scores between 1 and 7.

Practical Considerations: This paper-and pencil measure does not require any particu lar skill to administer, score, or interpret. Brief instructions are provided and the global score is derived by calculating the mean of the 38 items. Five items (13%) are reversed scored. The possibility of alternate scoring by subscale and/or according to a four-fold typology, as well as the development of two shorter versions are discussed, but further re search is needed before these methods pos sess the same reliability and validity as the original FMS measure and scoring criteria. Norms/Standardization: From a nationally

representative sample of congregations, 150

were randomly selected from each of the six

participating denominations. Samples were

stratified by size of the congregation to en

sure representative distribution. Within each

congregation, adolescents, adults, Christian

Education teachers, pastors, and Christian

Education coordinators (10 from each cate

gory) were randomly selected.

Norms in the form of mean scores are

172


provided for each of these groups . Sample size ranged from 3,582 (adult) to 404 (Christian Education Coordinator), reflect ing a 65% response rate for most groups. These norms are provided based on a total of five of the six groups; one denomination, Southern Baptist, was eliminated due to sample anomalies.

Reliability: Cronbach Coefficient Alpha reli abilities are reported by age, gender, denomination, and respondent category (i.e. adults, pastors, etc.). Coefficients across all categories range from .84 (females over 69 years) to .90 (males 60-69 years), demon strating high reliability for the measure. Validity : The authors present evidence to support face , content, and construct validity. Because the FMS is criterion-based and panels of experts were utilized to aid with construction, fac e validity is apparent at least for the denominations represented. Content validity is supported by the three stage process that was utilized to develop the items. Items were derived based on indi cators of the eight core dimensions postu lated by the authors in conjunction with the expert panels. Construct validity of the mea sure was assessed utili zing the techniques of known groups, expert raters, comparison scores by age, and comparison with other measures. Results of these evaJuations yielded confirmation of all predictions. Pas tors received the highest scores (known group), significant correlations existed be

tween expert raters and actual scores ob tained on the FMS by individuals, faith ma turity increased linearly with age, and the FMS correlated with intrinsic religiousness and was unrelated to extrinsic religiousness. Evidence supporting the validity of the FMS makes it quite suitable for research use.

Location: Benson, P. L., Donahue, M. J. , & Erickson, J. A. (1993). The Faith Maturity Scale: Conceptualiza tion, measurement, and empirical validation. In M. L. Lynn & D. O. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the so cial scientific study of religion (Vol. 5, pp. 1-26). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Subsequent Research: Benson, P. L. & Donahue, M . J. (1990). Valu e genesis: Report 1. A study of the influence offam ily, church, and school on the faith, values and commitment of Adventist youth. Paper presented to the General Conference, North American Divi sion, Seventh-day Adventist Church, Silver Spring, MD .

Additionally, the instrument has been used in local and regi onal studies of Catholic, Episcopal, American Baptist, and the Re form Church of America as well as with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Australia. No specific references were given in the Benson and Donahue (1990) article. Reference Benson, P. L. & Eklin, C. E. (1990). Effective Christian education: A national study of Protestant congregations: A summary report on faith, loyalty, and congregation life. Unpublished manuscript, Search Institute, Minneapolis, MN.

Appendix FMS Mark one answer for each. Be as honest as possible, describing how true it really is and now how true you would like it to be. Choose from these responses: 1 = never true 2 = rarely true 3 = true once in a while 4 = sometimes true

5 = often true

6 = almost always true

7 = always true

S cales of Religious Development

173

Never True

Always True

-~-- --- ~-----~- - ---~----~-----~-- - --t--

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2. I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who .. died on a cross and rose again

2

3

4

5

6

7

3. My faith shapes how I think and act each ....... and every day

2

3

4

5

6

7

1. I am concerned that our country is not doing .... enough to help the poor

4. I help others with their religious questions .... . . and struggles

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5. I tend to be critical of other people (R) . ..... . . .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

6. In my free time, I help people who . . ........ . . have problems or needs

7. My faith helps me know right from wrong ......

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8. I do things to help protect the environment . . ... .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

5

6

7

9. I devote time to reading and studying the Bible . . 10. I have a hard time accepting myself (R) ........ 11. Every day I see evidence that God is active ..... in the world

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

13. I am active in efforts to promote social justice ...

2

3

4

5

6

7

14. I seek out opportunities to help me ........... grow spiritually

2

3

4

5

6

7

12. I take excellent care of my physical health ......

)

15. I take time for periods of prayer or meditation ...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

16. I am active in efforts to promote world peace ... .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

17. I accept people whose religious beliefs are ..... . different from mine

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

18. I feel a deep sense of responsibility for reducing .. pain and suffering in the world

2

3

4

5

6

7

19. As I grow older, my understanding of ..... . . . ..

2

3

4

5

6

7

20. I feel overwhelmed by all the responsibilities . . . . and obligations I have

2

3

4

5

6

7

2 1. I give significant portions of my time and . . ... . . money to help other people

2

3

4

5

6

7

22. I speak out for equality for women .. . .. . . .... and minorities

2

3

4

5

6

23. I feel God's presence in my relationships . . ..... with other people

2

3

4

5

6

2

3

4

5

6

God changes

24. My life is filled with meaning and purpose . .. . . .

1


174

25. I do not understand how a loving God can .... . . allow so much pain and suffering in the world (R)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

26. I believe that I must obey God's rules and commandments in order to be saved (R)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

27. I am confident that I can overcome any ... . .... problem or crisis no matter how serious

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

3

4

5

6

7

28. I care a great deal about reducing poverty in ..... the United States and throughout the world 29. I try to apply my faith to political and ..... .. .. social issues

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

30 My life is committed to Jesus Christ .. . .. . . . .. .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

31. I talk with other people about my faith ... . .....

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

32. My life is filled with stress and anxiety .........

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

33. I go out of my way to show love to .. .... . .. . .. people I meet

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

34. I have a real sense that God is guiding me ......

2

3

4

5

6

7

35. I do not want the churches of this nation ........ getting invol ved in political issues (R)

2

3

4

5

6

7

36. I like to worship and pray with others .. . ..... . .

2

3

4

5

6

7

37. I think Christians must be about the business .... of creating international understanding

and harmony

2

3

4

5

6

7

38. I am spiritually moved by the beauty of God's ... creation enough to help the poor

2

3

4

5

6

7

(R)- reversed scored Benson , P. L., Donahue, M. J., & Erickson, J. A. (1993). The Faith Maturitry Scale: Conceptualization, measurement, and impirical validation. In M. L. Lynn & D. D. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the social scien tific study of religion (Vol. 5, pp. 1- 26). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Copyright © 1993 JAI Press . Reprinted with permission.

4.5

RELIGIOUS INDEX OF MATURING SURVEY (Marthai, 1980)

Reviewed by Michael J. Boivin

Variable: The Religious Index of Maturing Survey (RIMS) assesses religious maturity by evaluating an individual's feelings and orientation pertaining to his or her religious life. This measure pertains to religion in general and does not assess any particular religious commitment. Marthai (1980) began with the notion that religious maturity has some basis in an individual ' s self concept or ego identity. He

then listed the following criteria as defining his construct of religious maturity: (a) phe nomenal in nature; (b) a process and not necessarily a set of objective standards ; (c) reality based; (d) intrinsically motivated; (e) involving a religious identity, either with an organization or as personally defined; (f) in volving a religious self concept in that one has a sense of acceptance of self in light of one's religion; (g) reflecting wholeness; (h) --

- - - - - - - - - ' - - - - 'y ........


volitionally based; (i) involving changes in behaviors, attitudes and/or values; (j) re flecting growth towards more complete and whole behaviors; (k) associated with satis faction; (1) somewhat related to physical and cognitive maturity; and (m) an unending growth process.

Description: Marthai constructed 79 state ment items using, as a guideline, Clark's (1970) 10 questions for appraising mature religion. Other general statements were in cluded reflecting religious concepts, theo logical issues, and generally accepted reli gious behaviors. After administering this initial version of the instrument to 250 Bap tist church members in and around the Grand Rapids, Michigan area, Marthai (1980) used a factor analysis of his initial sample results to refine the instrument down to the 19 items having the highest loadings on the primary factor. This factor seemed to be "centered around the constructs of growth, satisfaction and positive behavioral change in and through one's religion" (p. 25). The statements were formatted according to a five point Likert format ranging from "completely true" (A) to "completely false" (E) . To prevent a response set, five of the items were negatively worded and six new nonscored negatively worded statements were randomly added for a total of 25 state ment items. To score the instrument, Marthai (1980) simply totaled the Likert ratings for the 19 scored items (e.g., A/Completely true = 5, E/Completely false = 1), reversing the val ues for the five negatively worded items. The Likert ratings were then totaled for an overall score on the RIMS . Practical Considerations: The administra tion of the instrument is straightforward. Statements are clear, concise, and appropri ate for a variety of religious and nonreli gious contexts. This instrument is short and can be easily completed by normal adults in 15 minutes or less. The format allows the measure to be easily combined with other instruments.

175

Norms/Standardization: The instrument was administered to 216 adolescents (grades 8-12) at three conservative Christian schools in the south. Each school was ad vertised as nondenominational and conserv ative in doctrinal beliefs (holding to the fun damentals of the Christian faith). All but one of the students were white, and 45% of the respondents were male. Mean grade level was 9.3 years and mean age was 15.5 years. Mean years since con version as self-reported was 7.04 years. The denominational preference was 48% Bap tist, 12% Presbyterian, 8% Methodist, 7% Independent, 3% Pentecostal and Full Gospel, 3% Lutheran, and 19% nonrespon dent. The students were described as middle class by school administrators. Reliability: Thirty-three students from one school were tested twice within a period of 10 days. The test/retest reliability coeffi cient was .81. The Cronbach inter-item co efficient for internal consistency was .93. The high level of internal consistency might be expected based on the selection criterion for the items to be included in the final draft of the instrument. Validity: Since Marthai hypothesi zed a strong relationship between positive self concept and religious maturity, the Ten nessee Self-Concept Scale (TSCS) (Fitts, 1965) was administered along with several other instruments in addition to the RIMS. The statistically significant positive correla tion s with the TSCS Total-P scores (r = 0.39, p < .01) and TSCS Moral-Ethical sub scale (r = 0.54, p < .01) indicated good con struct validity for the RIMS. The Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety In ventory (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) was administered as part of the above battery to test the hypothesis that the reli giously mature individual would demon strate wholeness, in part by being less anx ious. The significant negative correlations with both state (r = -0.22, p < .01) and trait anxiety (r = 0.21, p < .01) indicate good construct validity here as well. Finally, Allport and Ross ' (1967) mea sure of Intrinsic/Extrinsic religious orienta-

17 6


tion was included to evaluate the hypothesis that religious maturity would correspond in a positive manner to intrinsic religiosity, and negatively to extrinsic religiosity. RIMS performance was significantly correlated to intrinsic religiosity (r = 0.79, p < .01) and extrinsic religiosity (r = -0.31 , p < .01). These correlations support Marthai's con ceptual basis for maturity measure, and lend further validity to this measure.

Subsequent Research: None found. References:

Allport, G., & Ross, J. (1967) . Personal reli gious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Person ality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443. Clark, W. (1970). The psychology of religion. New York: Macmillan. Fitts , W. (1965). Manual for Tennessee Self Concept Scale . Los Angeles: Western Psychologi cal Services. Location: Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, Marthai, R. (J 980). Construction and validation R. E. (1970). STAI manual for the State- Trait Anxi of a measure of phenomenal process and religious ety Inventory . Palo Alto, CA: ConSUlting Psycho maturity. (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Missi s logical Press. sippi University, Hattiesburg, MS, 1980). Disserta tion Abstracts International, 41-05B, 1893.

Appendix RIMS: A Self-Perception Scale Name _______________________________

Class or Position _____________________

Date _______________________________

Religious Preference __________________

Years since religious conversion __________

Age ___________________________

This is a survey that will be used to find out how people think about their religion. Please an swer the following statements by circling the choice which best describe you. A = completely true

B = partly true

C = partly true and partly false

D = partly false

E = completely false

Please respond with your first impression about yourself and do not deliberate on anyone

question. Please answer for how you personally agree or disagree with the statement and not

how other people might expect you to answer. Religion in this survey means all of your per

sonal beliefs about God and spiritual things. There are no right or wrong answers. They are

only right if they reflect your personal beliefs.

A

B

C

D

E

1. My religion is the primary factor in my life.

A

B

C

D

E

2. My religion is not fresh each day.

A

B

C

D

E

3. My religious beliefs play a vital role when I make everyday

choices.

A

B

C

D

E

4. My religion does not fully satisfy me.

A

B

C

D

E

5. My religion gives me a wholeness to living.


A B C D E A B C D E

6. I feel an urge to know more about my religion's deeper truth.

A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E

8. I rarely or never think of myself being part of the universe.

A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E E

177

7. I am unconcerned that others find the same things I have found in

my religion. 9. My religion is growing daily within me.

lO.

Many things have changed in my life since I have followed my re ligion.

11. Almost no one knows what I really believe about my religion. 12. I often become confused about what to believe about my religion. 13. I have a better understanding of myself than I have about my reli gion. 14. I see myself as part of a master plan.

A

B

C

D

A A A A A A

B B B B B B

C

D E

15. In persecution for my religion, I am uncertain I would hold up.

C

D

E

16. Because of my religion, I continually experience a new joy.

C

D

E

17. I have no doubts about religious miracles.

C

D

E

18. God interacts with me.

C

D

E

19. I have a lot of hope in my religion.

C

D

E

20. My religion has helped me be more open in my relationships with other people.

A B C D E

21. My views of my religion have not changed since I have followed them.

A B C D E A B C D E

22. I read the Scriptures rarely. 23. The criterion I use to decide whether or not to do something is to ask if it would be pleasing to God.

A

BC

D

E

24. God actively directs my life.

A

BC

D

E

25. My religion does not really give me a sense of reality.

Reprinted with permission of the author.

4.6

RELIGIOUS STATUS INTERVIEW

(Malony, 1985, 1988; Malony & Nelson, 1982)

Reviewed by Peter C. Hill Editors' Note: The Religious Status Interview and The Religious Status Inventory (reviewed next) were designed by the same research team. The purpose of both instruments is to measure Christian maturity as an indicator of optimal religious functioning. The major difference is that one is an interview and the other is a paper-and-pencil inventory.

Variable: The Religious Status Interview (RSI) is a measure of Christian religious maturity. Malony (1985) defines Christian maturity in the following way:

Mature Christians are those who have identity, integrity and inspiration. They "identify" in that their self-understanding is as children of God-created by Him and

17 8

M E ASURES OF RELIGIOSITY

destined by Him to live according to a di· vine plan . They have "integrity" in that their daily life is lived in the awareness that they have been saved by God's grace from the guilt of sin and that they can freely respond to God's will in the present. They have "inspiration" in that they live with the sense that God is available to sus tain, comfort, encourage, and direct their lives on a daily basis. (p. 28)

Description:

This one-hour interview schedule was originally intended to provide mental health professionals with an instru ment that asses ses religious maturity, partic ularly as it relates to optimal religious func tioning. Malony (1985) maintains that this tool is usefu l for the mental health profes sional in three types of decisions: diagnosis, general mental status, and treatment. The in terview' s use, however, is not limited to the mental health professional. The RSI assesses eight dimensions of re ligious experience based on Pruyser (1976): (a) Awareness of God (6 questions), (b) Ac ceptance of God's Grace and Steadfast Love (4 questions), (c) Being Repentant and Re sponsible (5 questions), (d) Knowing God's Leadership and Direction (3 questions), (e) Involvement in Organized Religion (4 ques tions), (f) Experiencing Fellowship (3 ques tions), (g) Being Ethical (4 questions), and (h) Affirming Openness in Faith (4 ques tions). The instrument measures overall reli gious maturity across all dimensions, though a more specific maturity may be eval uated on any of the dimensions as well. Malony (1 985) identifies several assump tions or characteristics of the RSI. First, "re ligion," as identified in the RSI, is under stood as a "substantive social reality rather than a dynamic subjective motivation" (p. 26). Second, the interview is limited to Christian religion, not religion in general. Third, the interview attempts to assess how substantive beliefs function in the life of the individual being evaluated. Fourth, the in terview assumes that what people say about their religion is the essence of their religious faith and, therefore, is admittedly con fo unded with verbal ability. Fifth, it is as

sumed that people should be able to about their faith spontaneously. Scoring of responses is provided \\i the interview itself, with the highe t (5) reflecting the most mature respon e the lowest score (1) reflecting the least ture response. The rating for each ite placed on the score sheet provided at the ginning of the instrument and the respo across the items for each of the eight d' ~ sions are simply summed. The total ran-=~ scores is between 32 and 160.

Practical Considerations: Great care be taken in adminstering any interview. ~ key to a good interview is to not lead the ~ spondent toward any response and to the interview process as standard as bIe. Training for interviewers is re mended. The authors have provided a instructions at the beginning of the view instrument. The procedure usually involve down answers in the space pro ide
192


QUESTION: 32. How do you respond to people

who do not believe as you do?

ANSWER:

SUBSCALE: C. Openness to Divergent Viewpoints RATING: 1 = This person's faith is very rigid and unable to tolerate differing ideas. This individual may reject or distort these different ideas and practices in order to maintain his/her own position. 2=

3 = This person is unable to tolerate new ideas in some areas of faith. 4= 5 = While expressing confidence in hislher own view, this person shows a tolerance for others' viewpoints and a willingness to examine and try to understand other people's be liefs. 4=

3 = This person is easily influenced by others' beliefs and frequently vacillates among them.

2=

1 = This person is unsure about his/her beliefs. His/her beliefs change completely depending upon whom he/she is with. QUESTION: ANSWER: 33. Can you name some dimensions, or parts, of your faith that are important to you. SUBSCALE: D. Differentiation of Faith RATING: 1 = This person's faith is thoroughly undifferentiated and composed of a small number of categories or elements. Ideas are global and overgeneralized. (l part)

2=

3

= This person's faith is composed of only a few categories or elements. These ideas

include generalizations. (3 parts)

4= 5 = This person's faith is differentiated and is composed of a relatively large number of cat egories or elements. Ideas are multiple and specific rather than overgeneralized. (5 parts) Reprinted with permission of author.

4.7 RELIGIOUS STATUS INVENTORY (Hadlock, 1988; Jackson, 1994; Massey, 1988) Reviewed by Peter C. Hill Editors' Note: The Religious Status Interview (p. 178) and The Religious Status Inventory were designed by the same research team. The purpose of both instruments is to measure Christian maturity as an indicator of optimal religious functioning. The major difference is that one is an interview and the other is a paper-and-pencil inventory.

J

Sc ales of Religious Developmen t

Variable : The Religious Status Inventory is a meas ure of Christian religious maturity. Malony (1 985) defines Christian maturity in the following way: Mature Christians are those who have identity, integrity and inspiration. They "identify" in that their self-understanding is as children of God-created by Him and destined by Him to live according to a di vine plan. They have "integrity" in that their daily life is lived in the awareness that they have been saved by God's grace from the guilt of sin and that they can freely respond to God's will in the present. They have "inspiration" in that they live with the sense that God is available to sus tain, comfort, encourage, and direct their lives on a daily basis. (p. 28)

Description: The Religious Status Inven tory contains 160 items measured on a 5 point scale ranging from "not true of me" (1) to "true of me" (5). Scores are simply added together. Thus, total scores may range from a low of 160 to a high of 800, with higher scores indicating greater reli gious maturity. The Religious Status Inventory, like the Religious Status Interview (RSI), was origi nally designed to assess eight dimensions of religious experience based on Pruyser (1 976) : (a) Awareness of God, (b) Accep tance of God's Grace and Steadfast Love, (c) Being Repentant and Responsible , (d) Knowing God's Leadership and Direction, (e) Involvement in Organized Religion, (f) Experiencing Fellowship, (g) Being Ethical, and (h) Affirming Openness in Faith. Each dimension consists of 20 items, half of which are reversed scored, resulting in a range for each dimension of 20 (low reli gious maturity) to 100 (high religious maturity). However, a factor analysis conducted by Jackson (1994) found seven rather than eight dimensions: (a) Importance of Reli gion in Daily Life (64 items), (b) Worship and Commitment (44 items), (c) Complex ity of Faith (7 items), (d) Rejection of Sim plistic Faith (7 items), (e) Involvement in Organized Religion (5 items) , (f) Social

19 3

Ethics (5 items), and (g) Optimal Religious Functioning (49 items-a higher order fac tor consisting of items from Factors 2 and 5). A scoring key is provided at the end of instrument in this volume for both the seven- and eight-dimension analyses. Malony (1 985) identifies several assump tions or characteristics of the Religious Sta tus Interview. Many of the same assump tions or characteristics apply to the Religious Status Inventory as well. First, "religion," is understood as a "substantive social reality rather than a dynamic subjec tive motivation" (p. 26). Second, the inven tory is limited to Christian religion, not reli gion in general. Third, the inventory attempts to assess how substantive beliefs function in the life of the individual being evaluated.

Practical Considerations: No special con siderations are necessary in administering or scoring this instrument. Norms/Standardization: Normative data for the Religious Status Inventory were based on 451 Christian college and semi narian students throughout the United States. Means and standard deviations of the eight original dimensions were re ported. Means (with a possible range of 20-100 on each dimension) were quite con sistent across the eight dimensions, ranging from a low of 69.06 (Involvement in Orga nized Religion) to a high of 77.87 (Know ing God 's Leadership). Standard deviations were less consistent, ranging from a low of 6.27 (Being Repentant and Responsible) to a high of 14.57 on (Involvement in Orga nized Religion). Lukaszewski, Archer, Malony, Newton, and Jackson (1996) report mean scores of Jackson's (1994) seven factors based on 810 protocols. Mean scores were quite variable, ranging from a low of 2.72 (on a 1-5 range) for Involvement in Organized Religion to a high of 3.92 for Social Ethics. Reliability: Lukaszewski et al. (1996 ), based on Jackson's (1994) seven factors, re port alpha coefficients ranging from .54 (on the higher order factor of Optimal Religious


194

References

Functioning) to .98 (Importance of Religion in Daily Life). Test-retest reliability coeffi cients range from .70 (Social Ethics) to .92 (Worship and Commitment; Optimal Reli gious Functioning).

Hadlock, M. N. (1988). Construction and initial validation of the Religious Status Inventory. Un published doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA. Jackson, C. (1994). Afactor analysis of the Reli gious Status Inventory. Unpublished doctoral dis sertation, Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA. Lukaszewski, M., Archer, P. , Malony, H. N., Newton, S., & Jackson, C. (1996). Factorial stabil ity of the Religious Status Inventory: Empirical and ideological implications. Paper presented at the So ciety for the Scientific Study of Religion, Nashville, TN. Massey, D. (1988). Construction and factor analysis of the Religious Status Inventory. Unpub lished doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA. Malony, H. N. (1985). Assessing religious matu rity. In E. M. Stern (Ed.), Psychotherapy and the religiously committed patient (pp. 25-34) . New York: Hayworth Press. Pruyser, P. (1976). The minister as diagnosti cian. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Porter, R., Jr. (1995). Religious maturity and preferred mode of religious experience. Unpub lished doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasa dena, CA.

Validity: Porter (1995) found, as predicted, no significant differences of religious matu rity as measured by the Religious Status In ventory between four modes of religious ex perience: verbal, affective, social-relational, and transcendental. Research in progress at the time of this writing is investigating the relationship between the Religious Status Inventory's assessment of religious maturity and measures of both happiness as well as neuroticism and psychoticism. Location: This scale is unpublished. Infor mation may be obtained by contacting H. Newton Malony through the Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, 180 N. Oakland Ave., Pasadena, CA 91101.

Subsequent Research: A number of unpub lished master's theses and doctoral disserta tions at Fuller Theological Seminary are further establishing the metric properties of the scale. No other subsequent research using this measure was found.

Appendix A Religious Status Inventory Instructions: This inventory contains 160 items designed to study the way people think about their Christian faith and how it interacts with their lives. It may be taken by those who consider themselves Christians. Items will reflect what you believe, feel, and do in connection with your faith. There are no right or wrong answers. Just answer what is true for you. On the answer sheet provided for you please write your name and other information that has been asked for. Then begin by reading each statement and deciding whether this is true for you or not true of you. For each item, indicate on the answer sheet a number representing the following answers:

Not true

True

cl~

cl~

1--------------t--------------t---------------t--------------1- 1

2

3

4

5

J


195

l. I'm always happy because God takes care of all my problems.

2. I have read many books about my faith in the past year. 3. Making a decision is as simple as praying to God and waiting for an answer. 4. I regularly attend church or a religious community. 5. Religion is just one aspect of my life. 6. I pray for help in my decisions rather than ask for specific answers. 7. I have little desire to read a religious book. 8. When someone asks me to forgive them, I am able to do so. 9. Whatever problems I have I bring on myself. 10. I have been unable to find a group of Christians where I feel accepted. 11. I contribute a lot of money to social causes. 12. When I've done something wrong, I try to do something to correct the situation. 13. Both prayer and personal action are needed to deal with difficult problems. One with out the other is insufficient. 14. Without my Christian faith I would be a much different person. 15. I change my religious beliefs frequently. 16. I usually find something else to do rather than go to church. 17. When God forgives me, I feel like I'm "off the hook." 18. I would be free of problems if life treated me better. 19. There are a lot of different parts of my faith that I want to explore. 20. God can use my anger in positive ways. 21. I make most of my decisions based on the idea that I should do to others what I want them to do to me. 22. I feel a desire to worship God throughout the week. 23. Jesus Christ is the Lord of my life. 24. I am trying to help change many things that are unfair in the world. 25. When I've wronged someone, it is useless to apologize to them. 26. I know that God will bring good out of all my painful situations because he loves me. 27. Being with non-Christians makes me feel uncomfortable. 28. It's important to do what other people want you to do. 29. God is more important to me than anything else in my life. 30. I feel accepted and understood when I am with other Christians. 31. I am conscious that my relationship to God affects how I relate to my family. 32. I decide if something is right or wrong by what happens to me. 33. I feel safe and secure knowing that God loves me. 34. When I sin, I have a sense that God cares less about what happens to me. 35. I consider myself very active in moral issues. 36. I consistently give a large amount of my income to a church or religious organization. 37. It is difficult for me to relate to Christians who believe differently than I do.

o

196

MEASUR ES OF RELIGIOSITY

38. When making major decisions, I ask for help from my family, friends, and God. 39. I trust that the future is in God's hands and that I will accept whatever he has for me. 40. I need God's help in every minor decision I make. 41. One reason I go to church is to feel important in my community. 42. Denominational differences mean little to me. 43. When I am with a group of Christians, I feel at home. 44. I feel good about what I do because I know I am contributing to society. 45. I have little desire to be involved in social action. 46. Receiving God' s forgiveness inspires me to worship and praise God. 47. I feel comfortable receiving God's love and forgiveness. 48. All I can do is take what comes in life. 49. When I have hurt someone, I feel so guilty that I find myself avoiding them. 50. I fail to understand why things have to happen to me. 51. It bothers me that God does so little to make my life better. 52. I try to keep my religion separate from other aspects of my life. 53. I lack direction from God in how to fulfill my roles with my work and family. 54. If someone hurts me, it makes it hard for me to trust them again. 55. I have a regular devotional time in order to grow in my faith. 56. Some problems and sins are so complex that it is difficult to put blame on anyone thing. 57. I expect some hard times in the future but trust that God will help me through them. 58. I have difficulty handling someone getting angry at me. 59. I feel a common bond with other Christians. 60. God is an impersonal force . 6 1. I can do little to make my future better. 62. I' m uneasy around people from different cultures or races. 63. I am quick to ask for forgiveness when I have hurt someone. 64. I consistently go to church or a religious community twice a week or more. 65. My religious beliefs should be kept separate from what I do in my daily life. 66. I can know God merely by interacting with people. 67. I respect beliefs that are different than mine. 68. The causes of my problems include both myself and my surroundings. 69. Prayer helps me feel closer to God. 70. I am involved in my community as an expression of my faith. 71. I continue to wish the best for someone who has hurt me. 72. I volunteer quite often for church positions. 73. Prayer is useless in helping make major decisions. 74. I enjoy being around other people of different cultures or races.

Scales of Religious Deve lopment

197

75. I think about what God would want for my life when I make any major decision. 76. I have a great deal of problem with people who feel that our culture is better than others. 77. I see Jesus mainly as the founder of Christianity. 78. I feel forgiven by God when I sin. 79. It bothers me when religious differences keep people from becoming friends. 80. I would lose interest in my job if it paid less. 81. In the midst of prayer I sometimes stop and just listen. 82. Sometimes anger allows me to be productive in my actions. 83. I rarely go to church or a religious community. 84. I stand in awe and wonder of God my creator. 85. To make Jesus relevant to my daily life seems to be taking religion too far. 86. I continue to give money to the church during times when it is hard to pay my bills. 87. As a Christian everything is wonderful and will continue to be. 88. I have close friendships with both Christians and non-Christians. 89. God punishes sin. 90. I am careful to do what is right for fear that I will be punished by God. 91. I fail to see how my religious life relates to what I do every day. 92. Often I wonder if God really forgives me. 93. When problems are difficult, I recognize there is nothing I can do so I give it all to God. 94. My faith affects every aspect of my life. 95. My main reason for going to church is to make me feel better. 96. When I think of God's love, I get a warm and tender feeling inside. 97. I believe that God has a purpose for me in my job or what I do. 98. I seldom take time to think about my relationship with God. 99. My decisions are always founded on my faith. 100. Pain makes me question God's role in my life. 10 1. I have a hard time accepting God's forgiveness because I feel unworthy to receive it. 102. It is hard to be open and honest with other Christians. 103. I feel good about how God uses me in what I do. 104. When I have wronged someone my first thought is how that person might be feeling. 105. I lack close relationships with any group of Christians. 106. I rarely give money to the church. 107. I expect to have both good times and bad times in my future. 108. People from other cultures who become Christians will need to give up much of their cultural lifestyle. 109. I try to serve God through my work. 110. I have little desire to give money to the church. Il l. The church lacks a feeling of being like a family to me.

198


112. I rarely consider what God would think about my actions. 113. I enjoy my work because it makes me feel good about myself. 114. When someone has wronged me, I give them the cold shoulder. 115. What is right or wrong is sometimes unclear. 116. I refuse to listen to someone who says things contrary to the Bible. 117. I rely solely on my own resources to make major decisions in my life. 118. People from some cultures or races are difficult to trust. 119. Suffering seems to develop and refine my faith and character. 120. I need friendships with both Christians and non-Christians to help me grow. 121. God will still love me regardless of what I do. 122. Without my faith in God I would be lacking much of my sense of what is right or wrong. 123. I live my life without need of God's assistance. 124. When I have hurt someone, I try to ask myself what I can do to make it right. 125. My faith is renewed when I attend church. 126. I seldom struggle with decisions of what is right or wrong. 127. I avoid volunteering for church positions. 128. I need to be more involved in church than just being a member. 129. If you follow the Bible, you will know what is right or wrong in all situations. 130. The main reason I worship God is that I feel I should. 131. Involvement in a religious community seems unnecessary to me. 132. I avoid churches that encourage a lot of involvement. 133. I don' t get angry. 134. I try to keep a balance between what I can do for myself and what God can do for me. 135. It is important for Christians to separate themselves from non-Christians. 136. It would be hard to refrain from worshiping God. 137. Both God's guidance and my capabilities are important for dealing with difficult situa tions. 138. It's hard for me to understand how other people get so excited about God 's love. 139. My concern for others is based on my love for God. 140. Knowing that God loves me gets me very excited. 141. I am comfortable with other people believing differently than I. 142. I go to church mainly to worship God and fellowship with other Christians. 143. If I've done something wrong, it is better to let it go than to bring it up again and apol ogize for it. 144. Because God loves and forgives me, it makes me want to go out of my way to help someone else. 145. I pray mainly when things are out of my control. 146. I have little need to deal with moral issues because very few affect me.


199

147. I like to just sit and enjoy a church service. I dislike being asked to participate in it. 148. My religious beliefs are complex. 149. I feel an absence of God's love in my life. 150. I go to church because I want to grow as a Christian. 15 1. I feel guilty when I fail to pray. 152. Talking to people from different cultures helps me to have a broader view of life. 153. Some people would say that my faith is too simple. 154. I am very active in church activities. 155 . To know that God loves me is the only thing I need to know about my faith. 156. God is disappointed with me when I get angry. 157. I have discussed my faith with others on many occasions within the past year. 158. I live my daily life without thinking about my religious beliefs. 159. Discussing my faith with others seems unnecessary. 160. I try to keep an open mind about others' beliefs and am willing to change my beliefs if necessary. Reprinted with permission of author.

Appendix B Scoring the Religious Status Inventory There are two ways to score the Religious Status Inventory (RSI). One way is by using the eight dimensions on the basis of which the RSI was originally constructed. The other way is by using the seven factors found in a factory analysis done in 1993 by Dr. Cynthia Jackson. These two alternatives are described below. When the phrase "reverse score" is used, it means that when you add the answers to "reverse score" items to the score for that dimension or factor, you should change all 5s to Is, all 2s to 4s, and leave all 3s as they are. This will make sense with an example. Item 7 is "I have little desire to read a religious book" (the person taking the RSI answers along a 5-point scale where 5 equals "true of me" and 1 equals "not true of me"). Item 7 is a "reverse score" item on Dimension 7: Affirming Openness in Faith and on Fac tor 1: Religious Omissions. Since all scores on dimensions and on factors are additive (in the sense that you add up scores on the items to get a score for that dimension or factor), the higher the score, the more that dimension or factor characterizes them. Thus, it can be seen that if a participant checked 1 on this item, it should be weighted as a 5 in adding to the person being more Open in their Faith (Dimension 7) as well as adding to the number of things they do that should not do (Factor 1: Religious Omissions). Note that Dimension 7 is positive; higher scores contribute to greater religious maturity while Factor 1 is negative; higher scores contribute to less religious maturity. SCORING FOR DIMENSIONS OF THE RSI

Dimension 1: Awareness of God 23 29 Items: 13 22 (Reverse Score) 40 60

69 66

81 77

84 85

134 93

136 123

137 130

145

151

2 00

M EASURES OF RELIGIOSIT Y

Dimension 2: Acceptance of God's Grace and Steadfast Love 46 47 78 Items: 26 33 96 119 121 (Reverse Score) 1 17 34 50 89 92 100

140 101

144 138

149

Dimension 3: Knowing God's Leadership and Direction 6 31 38 39 57 70 75 Items: (Reverse Score) 51 53 61 65 3 48

103 73

107 87

109 91

117

Dimension 4: Being Ethical 11 21 Items: (Reverse Score) 28

97 90

99 112

115 113

122 126

139 129

146

Dimension 5: Being Repentant and Responsible 12 20 56 63 71 8 Items: (Reverse Score) 18 25 49 54 9

82 58

104 114

124 133

143

156

Dimension 6: Involvement in Organized Religion Items: 4 36 64 72 86 125 (Reverse Score) 16 41 83 95 106

128 11 0

142 127

150 131

154 132

147

Dimension 7: Experiencing Fellowship 42 43 59 Items: 30 (ReverseS core ) 10 37 27

24 32

35 45

44 80

74 62

76 102

79 105

88 108

120 111

152 118

135

Dimension 8: Affirming Openness in Faith L4 Items: 2 19 55 67 (Reverse Score) 5 7 15 52

94 98

141 11 6

148 153

157 155

160 158

159

The range for each dimension is 20 to 100. A total score can be obtained by adding up all di mensions. The range for the total score is 160 to 800.

Appendix C Scoring for the Seven Factors (Jackson, 1993) Factor 1: Importance of Religion in Daily Life (64 items) Items: 25 146 (Reverse Score) 15 7 10 16 18 27

45 83 106 132

48 85 108 133

50 87 110 135

51 89

III 138

52 90 112 143

53 91 113 145

Factor 2: Worship and Commitment (44 items) 4 Items: 13 14 22 23

60 92

114 147

28 62 98 118 155

32 65 100 123 158

34 66 101 127 159

37 73 102 130

41 80 105 131

30 31 70 75 121 122

33 78 125

38 81 128

39 84 136

57 99 144

59 103 150

109

29 69 119

Factor 3: Complexity of Faith (7 items) Items: 56 68 11 5 120

148

152

160

43 86 137

46 94 139

47 96 140

55 97 142

26

61 95 117 149

64

--- ------

-----~:;::.:::...-I

Scales of Religious Development Factor 4: Rejection of Simplistic Faith (7 items) Items: 1 3 40 93 116 129

201

156

Factor 5: Involvement in Organized Religion (5 items) 11 36 72 154 Items : 2 Factor 6: Social Ethics (5 items) Items: 1 22 36

72

154

One Higher Order Factor: Optimal relgious Functioning (items from Factors 2 & 5; 49 total items)

4.8 SPIRITUAL MATURITY INDEX (Ellison, 1983) Reviewed by Daryl H. Stevenson

Variable : The Spiritual Maturity Index (SMI) is a general measure of religious ma turity that conceptualizes the construct as a continuous developmental process. Derived from evangelical Christian theology, the SMI is "marked by qualities that are similar to psychological maturity" (Ellison, 1984). Ellison conceives of the maturing person as exhibiting autonomy (not basing faith be liefs on the consensus of others), keen per ception of reality, and creativity in every day life. He suggests that the spiritually mature person does not rely on support from others to maintain beliefs but devel ops those beliefs through critical self-re flection . Ellison sees religious practices and be liefs as an integral part of life 's daily activi tie . Ellison believes spiritual maturity, un like the closley related concept of spiritual well-being, implies meeting attitudinal and behavioral criteria not suggested in the con cept of well-being. The spiritually mature person is self-principled and is able to enter into many full relationships with others. Hence, maturity reflects interdependence as well as a strong sense of self. Spiritually mature persons are willing to make sacrifices for the welfare of others as well as cope with suffering and pain. Such individuals define their personal identity in relationship to closeness and communion with God. They tend to be conscientious re garding regular devotional time with God,

seeing it as essential for spiritual growth. Self-principled and autonomous, these per sons actively use their gifts and talents and are committed to cultivating and expressing the classic Christian virtues and disciplines.

Description : The SMI consists of 30 self-re port items, logically derived, and scaled on a 6-point Likert-style format with reverse scoring on 12 items due to negative word ing. The respondent circles the letters corre sponding to the phrases which most ade quately describe one 's attitude. These phrases are "strongly agree" (SA), "moder ately agree" (MA), "agree" (A), "disagree" (D), "moderately disagree" (MD), "strongly disagree" (SD). Eighteen of the 30 items, if marked in the strongly agree direction, are said to be indicators of mature spirituality. Face validity of the scale is quite high be cause items are directly related to Ellison's conceptualized quality of spiritual maturity. Practical Considerations: The instrument is easily self-administered and takes 10 min utes or less to complete. The scoring key in dicates the nature of each item. They are scored from 1 to 6, with the higher number representing the more favorable direction (i.e., maturity) . The total score is the sum of the scores obtained on all items, making the range of scores 30 to 180. No items are in cluded as a check for social desirability or other response biases. The instructions indi cate that there is no "right" response in an

Appendix A

Appendix A

Suggest Documents

APPENDIX A APPENDIX A: TOBIN FRAMEWORK CATEGORIES

appendix a appendix a: tobin framework categories

APPENDIX A

Appendix A

Appendix A

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

Appendix A

Appendix A

Appendix A

Appendix A

Appendix A

APPENDIX A

Appendix A

Appendix A

Appendix A

Appendix A

Appendix A

Appendix A

Appendix A

Appendix A

Appendix A

APPENDIX A PERIODICALS1 This appendix provides ...

Appendix A Industry Survey